Charles Elrod v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 2, 2006
• Docket: 12-05-00202-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                NO. 12-05-00202-CR

NO. 12-05-00203-CR

NO. 12-05-00204-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES ELROD, §          APPEALS FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Charles Elrod appeals his convictions for intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault.¹  In each case, he entered a guilty plea.  The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life in each case, the sentences to run concurrently.  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

            On June 18, 2002, Appellant caused an automobile accident.  Due to the resulting fatality and injuries, he was charged by indictment with one count of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault.  In each case, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty without an agreement as to punishment.  After a presentence investigation and a sentencing hearing, the trial court found that a deadly weapon was used and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for life in each case.  The trial court ordered the three sentences to run concurrently.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate records and is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in these cases.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.²  We have likewise reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

                                                                                                     JAMES T. WORTHEN   

                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered August 2, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Throughout the record, including the judgments, the terms “intoxicated manslaughter” and “intoxicated assault” are used to refer to the offenses.  However, the correct names of these offenses are intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann.  §§ 49.07, 49.08 (Vernon 2003).

² Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file his own brief in these causes.  The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.