Shannon Roy Oliver v. State, No. 12-09-00275-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler July 30, 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Shannon Roy Oliver v. State, No. 12-09-00275-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler July 30, 2010). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shannon Roy Oliver
v.
State
12-09-00275-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jul 30, 2010.
Published opinion
Published
NO. 12-09-00275-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS
SHANNON ROY OLIVER,APPELLANTV.THE STATE OF TEXAS,APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 2NDJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTCHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Shannon Roy Oliver appeals his conviction for assault. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of assault. As charged, the offense was a third degree felony because the indictment alleged that the victim was a public servant who was lawfully discharging an official duty when he was assaulted.[1] Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he would be placed on community supervision for a period of seven years in exchange for admitting his guilt. Appellant also agreed to serve thirty days in jail as a condition of community supervision, and the State agreed to dismiss a charge of evading arrest or detention. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant on May 8, 2003.

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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 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 was 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 this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 30, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009). In 2005, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt in which it alleged that he was in violation of the terms of his community supervision. In response, the trial court modified the terms of Appellant’s community supervision. Specifically, the trial court added a requirement that Appellant take all medications prescribed by his physician and follow his physician’s instructions. In April 2009, the State again filed to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The State alleged that Appellant committed a new offense and had “failed to avoid injurious or vicious habits,” each a violation of the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations, and the trial court held a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had committed a new offense, terminated his community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment for four years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. CONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 (“After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal.”).