Buford Meadows v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Buford Meadows v. State

DecidedMay 10, 2006

Docket07-05-00354-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Buford Meadows v. State (Buford Meadows v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buford Meadows v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0354-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MAY 10, 2006

______________________________

BUFORD WILLIAM MEADOWS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 31^ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY;

NO. 4163; HON. STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

After a jury trial, appellant Buford William Meadows was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 20 years imprisonment. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders⁽¹⁾ brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant's appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to appeal pro se. By letter dated March 29, 2006, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by April 28, 2006, if he wished to do so. The latter date has passed without the filing of either a motion for extension or a response.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential grounds of error and then explained why they were meritless. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded that none existed.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744- 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NO. 07-05-0354-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MAY 10, 2006

______________________________

BUFORD WILLIAM MEADOWS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 31^ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY;

NO. 4163; HON. STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

After a jury trial, appellant Buford William Meadows was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 20 years imprisonment. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders⁽¹⁾ brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant's appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to appeal pro se. By letter dated March 29, 2006, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by April 28, 2006, if he wished to do so. The latter date has passed without the filing of either a motion for extension or a response.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential grounds of error and then explained why they were meritless. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded that none existed.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744- 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Buford Meadows v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buford-meadows-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack