Homer C. Swarn v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 30, 2011
• Docket: 06-11-00068-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________

No. 06-11-00068-CR ______________________________

HOMER C. SWARN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st Judicial District Court Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 241-1260-10

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION

Homer C. Swarn appeals from his conviction in a Smith County1 jury trial for aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon. Swarn pled guilty, and he also pled true to an enhancement.

Punishment was assessed by a jury at seventy-five years’ imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine.

Swarn’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the

proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Swarn on July 15, 2011, informing Swarn

of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. No response has been

filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We therefore agree with counsel’s assessment

1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2 that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Jack Carter Justice

Date Submitted: September 29, 2011 Date Decided: September 30, 2011

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.