Jerimy Ryan Godwin v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-00045-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JULY 17, 2012
JERIMY RYAN GODWIN, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;
NO. 1230710D; HONORABLE GEORGE W. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jerimy Ryan Godwin, entered a plea of guilty to assault on a family
member1 and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision for four years. The State filed a motion and an amended motion
seeking to adjudicate appellant guilty of the original offense. The trial court heard the
evidence at the hearing on the motion to adjudicate and found appellant guilty. The trial
court sentenced appellant to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) (West 2011).
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant is appealing that judgment. We
affirm.
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 raised a ground that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed this ground 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.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
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