James Dean Lucas v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              NO. 12-09-00302-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    JAMES DEAN LUCAS,
    APPELLANT                                      '   APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
    V.                                             '   JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                            '   ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
    APPELLEE
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    James Dean Lucas appeals his conviction for assault on a public servant, for
    which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. Appellant=s counsel filed a
    brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967) and Gainous v. State, 
    436 S.W.2d 137
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss
    the appeal.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant is an inmate. While incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal
    Justice (“TDCJ”), Appellant struck TDCJ Correctional Officer Leonard Young in the
    face while Young was attempting to place handcuffs on Appellant, whom he believed had
    entered another inmate’s cell. Appellant was charged by indictment with assault on a
    public servant and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Following
    the presentation of evidence, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. The matter
    proceeded to a jury trial on punishment, after which the jury assessed Appellant’s
    punishment at imprisonment for twenty years.       The trial court sentenced Appellant
    accordingly and ordered Appellant’s sentence run consecutively to his current sentence.
    This appeal followed.
    ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
    Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and
    Gainous v. State.          Appellant=s counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the
    appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that
    there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she is
    well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and
    High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant=s brief
    presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further
    states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have
    likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
    CONCLUSION
    As required by Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
    Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
    consideration with the merits.              Having done so and finding no reversible error,
    Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is
    dismissed.2
    Opinion delivered July 14, 2010.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    1
    In her motion to withdraw, Appellant’s counsel indicates that that she provided Appellant with a
    copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a
    brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.
    2
    Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and
    judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.
    APP. P. 48.4; In re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411
    n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case
    by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
    review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for
    discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely
    motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
    discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for
    discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See
    In re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
    n.22.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-09-00302-CR

Filed Date: 7/14/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015