Stephen Paul Patel v. The State of Texas Appeal from 91st District Court of Eastland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed December 14, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ________________ Nos. 11-17-00211-CR & 11-17-00212-CR ________________ STEPHEN PAUL PATEL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 24348 & 24459 MEMORANDUM OPINION Stephen Paul Patel originally pleaded guilty to two offenses: failure to comply with his sex offender registration requirements and bail jumping/failure to appear. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement in each case, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both cases. After a contested hearing on revocation, the trial court found three of the State’s allegations to be true and revoked Appellant’s community supervision in both cases. The trial court imposed the original sentence of confinement for ten years in each cause and also imposed the original fine of $3,000 in cause no. 24348. We dismiss the appeals. In both appeals, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. Each 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 and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs, a copy of the motions to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate records. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the records and file a response to counsel’s briefs. Appellant has not filed a pro se response, nor has he filed the motion for pro se access to the appellate record.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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. [Panel Op.] 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.). 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 at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s briefs. 2 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. See 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 motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. PER CURIAM December 14, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Dauphinot,2 sitting by assignment. Bailey, J., not participating. 2 Lee Ann Dauphinot, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment. 3
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.
