Gregory Bryan Crawford v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-02-00193-CR

______________________________

GREGORY BRYAN CRAWFORD, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

                                              

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR0101587

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Charged by information with the offense of driving while intoxicated, Gregory Bryan Crawford pled not guilty. After hearing the evidence, however, a Hunt County jury found Crawford guilty as charged and the trial court assessed punishment at 180 days' confinement, suspended for fifteen months, and ordered the suspension of his driver's license and payment of an $800.00 fine and $265.25 in court costs.

            In addition to filing a motion to withdraw, Crawford's appellate counsel has since filed a brief with this Court in which he concludes, after reviewing the record and relevant law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record, describes the issues reviewed, and concludes there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Counsel also provided Crawford copies of the brief, clerk's record, and reporter's record, advising him of his right to file a brief pro se; nevertheless, Crawford has neither filed a brief nor has he otherwise communicated with this Court.

            Crawford's appellate counsel reviewed the record, noted trial counsel's motion to exclude certain evidence and objection to testimony by one of the witnesses for the prosecution, but concluded that, because the trial court did not rule on the motion and because neither a limiting instruction was requested nor a motion for mistrial made, nothing was preserved for appeal. Despite a motion for new trial, there is nothing in the record to show that any testimony was given or that a hearing was held; therefore, the motion was overruled by operation of law.

            Having independently reviewed the record and the brief filed by Crawford's appellate counsel, we agree there are no arguable issues that would support an appeal in this case.   Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          March 2, 2004

Date Decided:             March 30, 2004

Do Not Publish

"false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-11-00206-CR

                                                ______________________________

 

 

                              BRIAN CHADWICK MARTIN, Appellant

 

                                                                V.

 

                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

                                                                                                  

 

 

                                         On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

                                                           Hopkins County, Texas

                                                          Trial Court No. 1122182

 

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

            Brian Chadwick Martin has filed a notice of appeal.  We have now received the certification of Martin’s right of appeal as required by Tex. R. App. P. 25.2.  That certification states that Martin waived his right of appeal.

            Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).  Because the trial court’s certification affirmatively shows that Martin has waived his right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.

            Martin has also filed a motion to dismiss his appeal.  The motion is signed by Martin and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  As authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant the motion.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2.

            We dismiss the appeal.

 

 

                                                                                    Jack Carter

                                                                                    Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 4, 2012

Date Decided:        January 5, 2012                                  

 

Do Not Publish