IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 18, 2004
______________________________WILLIAM JAMES PEDDICORD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 48220-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING _______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant William James Peddicord appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substanced, enhanced. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, but without benefit of an agreed recommendation from the State as to punishment, the trial court found that the evidence substantiated a finding of guilty and assessed punishment at 45 years in prison. Appellant appealed.
Appellant's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders (1) brief wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel attached 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 response or brief pro se. By letter dated June 29, 2004, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set July 26, 2004, as the deadline to do so. On July 21, appellant filed a motion to extend the time to file a brief, which motion was granted and the deadline extended to August 25, 2004. This court also abated the appeal to obtain a completed certification of appellant's right to appeal. That certification has been received, and the appeal has been reinstated. To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, or another request for an extension. (2)
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed five potential areas for appeal. They involved 1) the voluntariness of appellant's plea, 2) whether appellant received a separate punishment hearing, 3) whether appellant was informed of the correct range of punishment, 4) the court's jurisdiction, and 5) whether appellant's prior juvenile adjudication was properly alleged in the indictment as an enhancement. However, appellate counsel then satisfactorily explained why each argument lacked merit.
We have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal any error.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2.
me="caption"/>
NO. 07-10-0449-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JANUARY 3, 2011
______________________________
In the Interest of T.L.C.G. and T.M.C.G., Children
______________________________
FROM THE 320th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 49,888-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING
______________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Tony Wayne Gindratt perfected this appeal on October 28, 2010. The appellate record was due on or about November 29, 2010. The court reporter has filed a motion to extend the time to file the record because appellant apparently failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for it, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(b)(3). By letter dated December 14, 2010, we directed appellant to certify to this court, by December 28, 2010, that he had complied with rule of procedure 35.3(a)(1)(2) and 35.3(b)(3). So too was he informed that failure to meet that deadline would result in the dismissal of his appeal. To date, this court has not received either the clerk=s record, the reporter=s record, or notification that the records have been paid for or that arrangements have been made for payment. Nor has this court received any request to postpone the dismissal date. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Per Curiam