Ricki Oliver v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 24, 2007
• Docket: 12-05-00339-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                NO. 12-05-00339-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RICKI OLIVER,        §                      APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Ricki Oliver appeals his conviction for multiple counts of theft, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for forty-eight years and fined ten thousand dollars.  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 and a supplement thereto.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant pleaded “guilty” to fifty-three counts of theft of property of varying values between $1,500.00 and $20,000.00 each.¹

  The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for forty years.  The trial court also fined Appellant five thousand dollars.  Pursuant to the trial court’s “timely pass for plea” procedure, Appellant sought to have the jury assess punishment.  Following a trial on punishment, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for forty-eight years and fined Appellant ten thousand dollars.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            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). Appellant’s counsel states that she 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.  She further relates 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 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s Anders 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 brief² in which he raised issues concerning (1) the completeness of the appellate record, (2) the voluntariness of his guilty plea, (3) the propriety of certain comments made by the prosecutor during Appellant’s trial on punishment, (4) error in the indictment, (5) ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel, and (6) the constitutionality of the trial court’s “timely pass for plea procedure.”  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.  Having done so and having found no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered January 24, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ The indictment also alleged that the properties in question were obtained pursuant to one scheme or a continuing course of conduct and that the aggregate value of the property obtained was $200,000.00 or more. 

²Appellant later supplemented his brief raising additional issues.