Gary Leon Wall a/k/a Gary L. Wall v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00476-CR _________________ GARY LEON WALL A/K/A GARY L. WALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98602 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, appellant Gary Leon Wall a/k/a Gary L. Wall pled guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Wall guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Wall on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Wall s unadjudicated community supervision. Wall pled true to two violations and not true to three violations of his community supervision. The trial court found that Wall violated the conditions of his community 1 supervision, found Wall guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at fortyfive years of imprisonment. Wall s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Wall filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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. Id. Having reviewed the clerk s record, the reporter s record, counsel s brief, and Wall s pro se brief, we agree that Wall s appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Wall s appeal. See id; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment dated July 1, 2011.1 1 After Wall appealed, we notified the trial court that the original judgment adjudicating guilt, dated October 14, 2010, might contain clerical errors. The trial court then corrected several clerical errors and issued a corrected judgment. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on June 21, 2011 Opinion Delivered July 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 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.
