Caleb Peter Hobart v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 30, 2023
Docket10-23-00060-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Caleb Peter Hobart v. the State of Texas (Caleb Peter Hobart v. the State of Texas) 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
Caleb Peter Hobart v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00060-CR

CALEB PETER HOBART, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1 Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 2210182

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Caleb Peter Hobart was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated, a Class A

misdemeanor, and sentenced to 365 days in jail. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Hobart’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in

support of the motion asserting that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and that,

in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record

for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or

"without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire

record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Hobart is granted.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2023 Do not publish [CR25]

Hobart v. State Page 2

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Caleb Peter Hobart v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caleb-peter-hobart-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.