NO. 12-06-00182-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
DEWEY CALVIN WELLS, § APPEAL FROM THE FIRST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SAN AUGUSTINE COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Dewey Calvin Wells appeals his conviction for indecency with a child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years and a ten thousand dollar fine. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to jury trial. Following the presentation of evidence, the jury found Appellant “guilty” of indecency with a child and sentenced him to imprisonment for twenty years and a ten thousand dollar fine. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant’s counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s Anders brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues:1
1. The trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress his written statement inasmuch as Appellant had not been advised of his Miranda2 rights;
2. The amount of the pretrial bond was excessive;
3. Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was violated;
4. Appellant’s pretrial confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment;
5. The trial court improperly instructed the jury in its charge with regard to the law and when Appellant would be eligible for parole;
6. Testimony admitted during the punishment phase of trial was illegal and/or tainted;
7. There was conclusive evidence concerning an affirmative defense to indecency with a child;
8. Appellant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance;
9. The prosecution engaged in improper jury argument; and
10. The prosecution wrongfully withheld evidence to which Appellant was entitled.
We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and having found no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Opinion delivered May 2, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 We have liberally construed Appellant’s issues in the interest of justice.
2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).