Clinton Saunders v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 11-22-00115-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed March 23, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00115-CR __________

CLINTON SAUNDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. B-21-0338-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Appellant, Clinton Saunders, of the first-degree felony offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(c) (West 2019). At the punishment phase, the jury found that Appellant caused the death of the victim under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, making the offense of conviction a second-degree felony. Id. § 19.02(d). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included two surveillance videos that depicted Appellant shooting the victim seven times. The jury heard punishment evidence and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for ten years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM

March 23, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.