IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
APRIL 2, 2004
______________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellant
v.
MIGUEL GONZALES TORRES,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B14340-0202; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant The State of Texas, by and through its attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the State has no right to appeal since it had already been dismissed on the State's motion. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
NO. 07-09-0209-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JULY 21, 2010
EUGENE THOMAS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 57,836-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, PRESIDING
Anders Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Eugene Thomas was convicted, after a jury trial, of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. His punishment was enhanced by a prior conviction, and he was sentenced to confinement for nine years.
Appellants appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief,[1] wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellants appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsels belief that there was no reversible error and of appellants right to file a brief or response pro se. By letter dated January 8, 2010, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by February 8, 2010, if he wished to do so. Appellant timely filed a response in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for not letting him testify at trial[2] and in failing to object to testimony of the States main witness.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed several potential areas for appeal. They include: 1) the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, 2) the effectiveness of trial counsel, 3) the excessiveness of appellants punishment, and 4) possible error in the admission of a trial exhibit. However, counsel discussed the applicable law and represented that he analyzed the facts of this case within the context of that law and determined that no reversible error existed.
We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsels conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), along with appellants response, and concluded the same.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.[3]
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
[1]See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
[2]Appellant testified at trial, outside the presence of the jury, that he had discussed with his counsel whether he should testify and that he (appellant) felt like its best for me not to testify.
[3]Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.