Ty Jordan Evans v. State
This text of Ty Jordan Evans v. State (Ty Jordan Evans 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.
Opinion
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00152-CR
RANDI DENISE BRAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. CCLM100048
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Randi Denise Bray appeals her conviction of guilt for the offense of driving while intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). Bray was sentenced to 180 days’ confinement in the county jail and was fined $2,000.00. Bray was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.[1]
Bray’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 360 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Bray on February 1, 2011, informing Bray of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Bray has neither filed a pro se response, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[2]
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: April 1, 2011
Date Decided: April 4, 2011
Do Not Publish
[1]Bray also appealed, in companion cause number 06-10-00151-CR, opinion issued on March 22, 2011, her conviction of guilt for the offense of evading arrest in a motor vehicle and resulting sentence of two years in the state-jail division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Both sentences are to run concurrently.
[2]Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ty Jordan Evans v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ty-jordan-evans-v-state-texapp-2011.