IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
______________________________
HEATHER LYNNE QUEEN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CARSON COUNTY;
NO. 2955; HONORABLE DAVID M. MCCOY, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellant Heather Lynne Queen filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on September 10, 2003, averring that she no longer wishes to prosecute her appeal. The Motion to Dismiss is signed by both appellant and her attorney.
Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed
the appeal at appellant's personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-indent: 0in } body { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
NO. 07-06-0431-CR
NO. 07-06-0432-CR
NO. 07-06-0433-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MARCH 25, 2008
______________________________
CLIFFORD EUGENE OSBORN,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NOS. 17,126-C;17,127-C;18,231-C; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
After a jury trial, Clifford Eugene Osborn was convicted of robbery, aggravated kidnaping, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After finding the enhancements true, the jury assessed punishment at life for the robbery conviction, life for the aggravated kidnaping, and twenty years for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant’s appeals are without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a pro se brief or response. By letter dated December 31, 2007, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by January 30, 2008, if he wished to do so. After requesting and receiving an extension of time, appellant filed a response wherein he contends 1) the trial court erred in refusing to grant the motion to suppress his statement, and 2) he was denied his right to counsel and meaningful access to the courts.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed several possible issues for appeal: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, 2) the denial of motions to suppress appellant’s statement and his identification, 3) the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of “true” to the enhancement paragraphs during the punishment phase, 4) the appropriateness of the punishments assessed, and 5) the effectiveness of counsel. However, appellate counsel has explained why each argument lacks merit.
We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our review has failed to reveal reversible error.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgments are affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.