COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
DAVID LEWIS TIPTON, §
No. 08-15-00069-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
V. Criminal District Court No. 3
§
of Tarrant County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
(TC# 1355209D)
§
Appellee.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Lewis Tipton appeals his conviction of manslaughter, enhanced by two prior
felony convictions. After finding Appellant guilty of manslaughter, a jury found the
enhancement paragraphs true and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of thirty-
three years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an
Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the
Court in writing that she has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to
Appellant, and she has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and
to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.
2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Appellant has been provided access to the appellate
record and he has filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se brief, and
agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the
record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the issues advanced in
Appellant’s pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
April 29, 2016
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-