eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2017-05

Manuel Wayne Hogan v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   NO. 12-16-00062-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
MANUEL WAYNE HOGAN,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
APPELLANT
V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Manuel Wayne Hogan appeals his conviction for evading arrest. 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 affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with evading arrest or detention and pleaded “not
guilty.” The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. Appellant pleaded “true” to two felony
enhancement paragraphs, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five
years. 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 relates that he has diligently reviewed the record and investigated all
possible grounds for appeal but found no error to present for our review. In compliance with
High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief
contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced.1
We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the
record.
    Id. at 811. 
    We have found no reversible error.
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant’s 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 these cases 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 pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court.                 See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).               Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 
    n.22.
Opinion delivered May 24, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1
Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant
was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has
been filed.
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
MAY 24, 2017
NO. 12-16-00062-CR
MANUEL WAYNE HOGAN,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 420th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1521620)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.