TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00046-CR
Willie Lee Ockletree, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 71320, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In January 2014, appellant Willie Lee Ockletree pled not guilty to the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02. The jury found him guilty
of that offense and additionally found two enhancement paragraphs to be true. See id. § 12.42(b).
The jury assessed punishment at 75 years in prison. See id. § 12.32.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies
of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record,
file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this
Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with
the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Appellant requested and
received the appellate record and filed a pro se brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and appellant’s pro se brief and
have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner,
300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree
with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the judgment of conviction.2
1
Appellant has raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his pro se brief which, if
appellant wishes to pursue those claims further, should be raised in a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals because the record before this Court does not support
those claims.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition
for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court
overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with
the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with
this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this
Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded
to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
2
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: August 6, 2015
Do Not Publish
3