Clinton Ray Wall v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 07-11-00185-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
DECEMBER 14, 2011
CLINTON RAY WALL, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B18690-1101; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Clinton Ray Wall, was convicted of theft after having been twice before
convicted of the offense of theft.1 Appellant pleaded true to two prior felony
enhancements.2 The jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) for a term
of 15 years. Appellant perfected this appeal. We affirm.
1
See TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2011).
2
See TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42 (West Supp. 2011).
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has
certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this
matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has
also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed. 3
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3