Philip Byrd v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 8, 2011
Docket03-10-00771-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Philip Byrd v. State (Philip Byrd 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
Philip Byrd v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-10-00771-CR

Philip Byrd, Appellant



v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-10-202201, THE HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N



Appellant Philip Byrd was convicted by a jury of theft, enhanced by two prior theft convictions. See Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(d) (West 2011). The trial judge assessed Byrd's punishment at fifteen months' confinement in a state jail facility. (1)

Byrd's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Byrd received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief or written response has been filed.

We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel's brief, and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: November 8, 2011

Do Not Publish

1. Byrd did not elect prior to trial for the jury to sentence him. See Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 27.02(7), art. 37.07, § 2(b) (West 2006).

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Philip Byrd v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-byrd-v-state-texapp-2011.