Lacy Lamar Anderson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 29, 2008
• Docket: 12-07-00007-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                NO. 12-07-00007-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LACY LAMAR ANDERSON,          §                      APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Lacy Lamar Anderson appeals his conviction for the offense of assault.  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).  Despite seeking a continuance to do so, Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant pleaded no contest to the third degree felony offense of assault of a family member and admitted he had a prior conviction for the same offense.  In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss another offense and to abandon punishment enhancements.  A contested punishment hearing was held, and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment and a fine of $1,500.  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 this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough 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 February 29, 2008.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)