Turner Perry Taylor v. the State of Texas
This text of Turner Perry Taylor v. the State of Texas (Turner Perry Taylor v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00145-CR
TURNER PERRY TAYLOR, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 20171417CR1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Turner Perry Taylor was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated and sentenced to
180 days in jail. That sentence was suspended and Taylor was placed on community
supervision-probation for 15 months. After a motion to revoke was filed by the State and
heard by the trial court, Taylor’s community supervision-probation was extended six
months from the date of the order. After another motion to revoke was filed by the State
and heard by the trial court, Taylor’s community supervision-probation was revoked,
and he was sentenced to 170 days in jail with a $1,000 fine. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment. Taylor’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the
record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude
that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or
"without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486
U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire
record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's judgment.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Taylor is granted.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Taylor v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2022 Do not publish [CR25]
Taylor v. State Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Turner Perry Taylor v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-perry-taylor-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.