Dontoya Remond Blackshear v. State

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

Opinion issued June 15, 2007























In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas



NO. 01-06-00149-CR

__________



DONTOYA REMOND BLACKSHEAR, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1044790



MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Dontoya Remond Blackshear, guilty of the offense of aggravated assault, (1) and, after appellant pleaded true to the allegation in one enhancement paragraph that he had a prior felony conviction, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years.

Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a document that constitutes a pro se response, (2) contending in four points of error that "the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] committed the offense of aggravated assault," the evidence is insufficient to prove "that the acts which caused [the complainant's] aggravated assault (sic) were performed with the knowledge that such acts created a strong probability of aggravated assault or great bodily harm," he was denied his right to a "fair trial when the prosecution was permitted to not (sic) introduce bloody and photographs (sic) bearing relation to any issue in the case and calculated to prevent the jury from seeing (sic) based on the properly admitted evidence," and the State failed to prove that he was "legally accountable for damaging property of [the complainant] or for reckless conduct toward another."

Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. (3)

All pending motions are denied.



Terry Jennings

Justice



Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Alcala.



Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

2.

After appellant's counsel filed her Anders brief, appellant filed a document titled "Writ of Mandamus for A Oral Argument Requested." In this document, appellant presented the above four "points of error" and also requested that we set this case for oral argument. We denied appellant's request for oral argument.

3.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 842 n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).