Gregory Devaughn Walton v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2007
• Docket: 12-06-00171-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                                                                        NO. 12-06-00171-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GREGORY DEVAUGHN WALTON,         §                      APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Gregory DeVaughn Walton appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated.  His appellate counsel has 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).¹  We affirm.

Background

            A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated, subsequent offense.  The grand jury also alleged that Appellant had previously been convicted of two unrelated felony offenses.  Appellant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty after a jury trial.  Appellant waived his right to have the jury assess punishment.  In a separate punishment hearing, and against counsel’s advice, Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement allegations.  The trial court accepted that plea and assessed punishment at 35 years of imprisonment.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous.  Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of each of these cases.  In compliance with Anders and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.

            We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).  We have found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

            As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered June 13, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.  The State waived the filing of a brief.