David Reed v. State of Texas--Appeal from 207th District Court of Comal County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed November 8, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00028-CR __________ DAVID REED, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 207th District Court Comal County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR2010-331 MEMORANDUM OPINION David Reed originally pleaded not guilty to the first-degree offenses of manufacturing a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. The trial court empanelled a jury, and the case proceeded to trial. During the presentation of the State s case-in-chief, appellant changed his plea to an open plea of guilty. After accepting appellant s plea of guilty and receiving evidence pertaining to punishment, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of forty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each offense with the sentences to be served concurrently. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel s brief. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel s motion to withdraw and supporting brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ( In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68. ). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM November 8, 2012 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals.1 1 Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment to the 11th Court of Appeals. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
