Daryl Wayne Wright v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Daryl Wayne Wright v. the State of Texas

DecidedApril 21, 2022

Docket11-21-00106-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Daryl Wayne Wright v. the State of Texas (Daryl Wayne Wright 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

Daryl Wayne Wright v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed April 21, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00106-CR __________

DARYL WAYNE WRIGHT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-18-1072-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Daryl Wayne Wright of the offense of assault family violence by impeding breathing. Appellant pled true to two enhancement allegations, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty years. 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 meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, 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 with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. 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 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM April 21, 2022 Do not publish.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.

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

Opinion filed April 21, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00106-CR __________

DARYL WAYNE WRIGHT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-18-1072-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Daryl Wayne Wright of the offense of assault family violence by impeding breathing. Appellant pled true to two enhancement allegations, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty years. 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 meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, 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 with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. 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 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM April 21, 2022 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daryl Wayne Wright v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daryl-wayne-wright-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack