eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-02

John Rich v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-10-00422-CR & 04-10-00423-CR
John RICH,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2008-CR-4083 & 2008-CR-4084
Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding
Opinion by:       Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting:          Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2011
AFFIRMED
John Rich pleaded no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and failure to
stop and render aid. Rich was sentenced to five years of confinement for each offense, to be
served concurrently, and was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine and restitution to the victim. We
affirm.
Rich’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), and a
04-10-00422-CR & 04-10-00423-CR
motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State,
    436 S.W.2d 137 
    (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Rich with a copy of the brief and motion to
withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See
Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns
v. State,
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Rich did not file a
pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error
and agree with counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
See
    id. Appellate counsel’s 
    motions to withdraw are granted.
    Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86
    ;
    Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 
    n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Rich wish to seek further review of
these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 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 is 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 these
cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Do not publish
-2-