J. D. Lewis McKinney v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00164-CR
J. D. LEWIS MCKINNEY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 67,318-A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding
October 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant J. D. Lewis McKinney pled guilty to the felony offense of driving while
intoxicated. After a punishment hearing to the trial court, he was sentenced to eight
years confinement. He then filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1
brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that
the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
letter sent to appellant informing him of her belief that there was no reversible error and
of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. Appellant was additionally supplied a
motion by which he could request a copy of the appellate record. Via letter, this court
also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by September 22,
2014, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been filed. Nor has the court
received from appellant a motion to obtain the appellate record.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas of appeal including the indictment, pretrial motions,
admonishments, appellant’s competence and the voluntariness of his plea, any adverse
rulings during the punishment hearing, sentencing, the judgment, the sufficiency of the
evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. She has satisfactorily explained why
the issues lack merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concurred with counsel’s conclusions.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2