James Alan Weatherford v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-14-00528-CR
    James Alan Weatherford, Appellant
    v.
    The State of Texas, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 12-0465-K277, HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California.1 In two causes consolidated
    for trial, appellant James Alan Weatherford pleaded guilty to numerous offenses related to child
    pornography. In trial court cause number 12-0465-K277, the subject of this appeal, Weatherford
    pleaded guilty to 24 counts of the offense of possession of child pornography.2 The district court
    accepted the guilty pleas but withheld its finding of guilt and reset the causes for sentencing.
    1
    
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    2
    In trial court cause number 14-0874-K368, Weatherford further pleaded guilty to
    three counts of the offense of promotion of child pornography and an additional 22 counts of
    the offense of possession of child pornography. Weatherford has also appealed his convictions in
    that cause, which has been docketed separately in this Court under appellate court cause number 03-
    14-00527-CR and remains pending at this time. We are considering that appeal separately because
    Weatherford’s counsel has not filed an Anders brief in that cause and is instead asserting a claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel relating to Weatherford’s convictions for the offense of promotion
    of child pornography.
    At the sentencing hearing, the district court heard evidence relating to the offenses.
    This evidence included the testimony of Sergeant Ross Behrens of the Texas Attorney General’s
    Office. Behrens testified that during his investigation of Weatherford, he discovered between
    120 and 130 images and videos of child pornography that had been downloaded from Weatherford’s
    internet-protocol (IP) address. Additionally, Sergeant Steven Reid, also of the Texas Attorney
    General’s Office, testified that he found over 25,000 images of child pornography on various hard
    drives, CDs, and DVDs that had been seized from Weatherford’s home. After considering this
    and other evidence, the district court found Weatherford guilty and sentenced him to five years’
    imprisonment for each of the 24 possession counts, with the sentences to run concurrent with
    Weatherford’s sentences in trial court cause number 14-0874-K368.3 The district court rendered a
    separate judgment of conviction for each of the 24 counts. This appeal followed.
    Weatherford’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
    a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
    of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
    why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.4 Counsel has certified to the Court that he has
    provided a copy of the motion and brief to Weatherford, advised Weatherford of his right to examine
    the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied Weatherford with a form motion for
    3
    In that cause, the district court sentenced Weatherford to 20 years’ imprisonment for each
    of the three counts involving the offense of promotion of child pornography, with the sentences to
    run consecutively, and five years’ imprisonment for each of the additional 22 counts involving the
    offense of possession of child pornography.
    4
    
    See 386 U.S. at 744-45
    ; see also Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988); High v. State,
    
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 
    516 S.W.2d 684
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
    Jackson v. State, 
    485 S.W.2d 553
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
    2
    pro se access to the appellate record.5 In response, Weatherford has filed a pro se brief in which he
    asserts that trial counsel was ineffective.
    We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We agree with
    counsel that the appeal in this cause is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record
    that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
    __________________________________________
    Bob Pemberton, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
    Affirmed
    Filed: August 28, 2015
    Do Not Publish
    5
    See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-14-00528-CR

Filed Date: 8/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/28/2015