In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00176-CR
______________________________
JOE RAY LOYD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20,940-2010
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joe Ray Loyd appeals his conviction of guilt for the offense of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011).
After having pled “guilty” to the charged offense, Loyd was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of ten years and fined $2,500.00. Thereafter, the State filed
its motion to proceed to final adjudication. Loyd entered a plea of “true” to the allegations set
forth in that motion. The judgment adjudicating guilt was entered on September 1, 2011. Loyd
was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.
Loyd’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 360 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503
(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Loyd on November 23, 2011, informing Loyd of his
right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. While Loyd was given an extension
of time in which to file his pro se response, no such response has been filed.
2
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support
an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and
is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: March 1, 2012
Date Decided: March 2, 2012
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should
appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain
an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011).
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3