Phillip Allen Page v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2007
• Docket: 12-06-00289-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                NO. 12-06-00289-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PHILLIP ALLEN PAGE,     §                      APPEAL FROM THE SECOND

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Phillip Allen Page appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child.  After finding him guilty, the jury assessed punishment at eighty years of imprisonment.  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).  Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief.  We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Background

            Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and invoked his right to a jury trial.  After hearing the evidence, the jury found him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child as charged in the indictment.  After the sentencing phase, the jury assessed punishment at confinement in prison for eighty years.  This appeal followed. 

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has 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.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 

            Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues concerning the jury charge, sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, admissibility of certain evidence, the credibility of certain witnesses, and juror misconduct.  We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have 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.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted. 

            The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered July 31, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)