eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2009-04

Paul Glen Dills v. State of Texas ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed April 16, 2009

     

     

    Opinion filed April 16, 2009

     

     

     

     

     

     

                                                                            In The

                                                                                 

        Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                      ___________

     

                         Nos. 11-08-00301-CR, 11-08-00302-CR, & 11-08-00303-CR

                                                        __________

     

                                          PAUL GLEN DILLS, Appellant

     

                                                                 V.

     

                                             STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

     

      

     

                                              On Appeal from the 29th District Court

     

                                                           Palo Pinto County, Texas

     

                                       Trial Court Cause Nos. 13731, 13732, & 13733

     

      

     

                                                 M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

    The jury convicted Paul Glen Dills of two offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon[1] and one offense of unlawful restraint.[2]  The jury found the enhancement allegation in each indictment to be true and assessed appellant=s punishment at confinement for forty years and a $2,000 fine in Cause No. 11-08-00301-CR, at confinement for twenty years and a $2,000 fine in Cause No. 11-08-00302-CR, and at confinement for fifteen years and a $2,000 fine in Cause No. 11-08-00303-CR.  We affirm.

    Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw.  Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with copies of the briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel=s briefs.  Responses have not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

    Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit.  We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66.  Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

    The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.

     

    PER CURIAM

     

    April 16, 2009

    Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

    Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

    McCall, J., and Strange, J.


    [1]Cause Nos. 11-08-00301-CR and 11-08-00302-CR.

    [2]Cause No. 11-08-00303-CR.