Karl Lynn Shackelford v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 12-22-00173-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-22-00173-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD, § APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY APPELLANT § COURT AT LAW NO 2 V. § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Karl Lynn Shackelford appeals his conviction for criminal trespass. Appellant’s counsel 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by information with criminal trespass.1 After declining appointed counsel and stating that he wished to represent himself, Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury heard evidence that Appellant entered real property located in Tyler, Texas, without the consent of the owner or the lessee. The landowner testified that Appellant did not have permission to enter her property, and she warned him not to do so. The lessee testified that he told Appellant several times to stop entering the property, but Appellant continued to enter the property and tore down the lessee’s “No Trespassing” signs, so the lessee called the sheriff’s

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.05 (West Supp. 2022). office. Deputy Jose Rojas of the Smith County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to the property, and upon arriving, he found Appellant on the property. Appellant told Deputy Rojas that he knew he was not supposed to be on the property. After the presentation of evidence and arguments, the jury found Appellant “guilty” of criminal trespass, and the trial judge assessed punishment at 180 days of confinement in the Smith County jail. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel further states that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.2 Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief, in which he contends the evidence was factually insufficient and the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending bankruptcy. We reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for

2 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2 discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 22 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered May 10, 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 10, 2023

KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-80161-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.