Alton James Joyce v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2024
• Docket: 12-23-00228-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-23-00228-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS ALTON JAMES JOYCE, § | APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT V. § | JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § | SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Alton James Joyce appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. 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 aggravated sexual assault of a child.! Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging that Appellant violated his

conditions of community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations, and the trial

1 A first-degree felony punishable by imprisonment for a term of life, or not more than ninety-nine years or less than five years, and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02 1(a)(1)(B)(iii), (a)(2)(B), (e) (West 2019); 12.32 (West 2019). court found him guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a

term of fifteen 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 reviewed the record and found no reversible points of error to argue on appeal. 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.”

We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible

error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

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 and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

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 411.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case 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 either the date of this opinion or the date that 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.

? In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 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 February 22, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 22, 2024 NO. 12-23-00228-CR

ALTON JAMES JOYCE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1301-22)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.