Donald Royce Callison, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 14, 2007
Docket09-06-00064-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Donald Royce Callison, Jr. v. State (Donald Royce Callison, Jr. 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
Donald Royce Callison, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-06-064 CR



DONALD ROYCE CALLISON, JR., Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18465



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Royce Callison, Jr. entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to an indictment for a felony offense, evading arrest by using a vehicle. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04 (b)(1) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to the trial court's instructions, the jury found Callison guilty, and the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility. (1) The trial court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Callison's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 25, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Callison to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

As there was no plea bargain agreement, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The trial court's admonishments appear in the record. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Callison admitted that he committed the offense. He has not contested the voluntariness of his guilty plea.

We reviewed the appellate record and agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trial court's judgment is affirmed. (2)
AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on October 25, 2006

Opinion Delivered March 14, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. The jury found Callison guilty of two other counts, aggravated assault of a public servant and assault of a public servant. Callison appealed only his conviction for aggravated assault of a public servant; that appeal is addressed in a separate opinion by this Court in Cause No. 09-06-065 CR.

2.

Appellant may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

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)
Jack v. State
871 S.W.2d 741 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Donald Royce Callison, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-royce-callison-jr-v-state-texapp-2007.