Randy Gene Brazeal v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 47th District Court of Randall County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0222-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 27, 2006 ______________________________ RANDY BRAZEAL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 16715-A; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant Randy Brazeal appeals his conviction of theft of property of the value of $1500 or more but less than $20,000. His appointed counsel has moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and representing that he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The brief indicates that appellant was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any response or brief he cared to file had to be filed by January 26, 2006. To date, appellant has neither filed a pro se response nor moved for an extension of time. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal. They involve 1) whether the punishment evidence was sufficient to support a finding of “true” to the two enhancement paragraphs of the indictment, and 2) whether trial counsel was ineffective. However, appellate counsel then explained that even though the pen packet for one of the alleged offenses is not in the record, appellant’s plea of “true” is sufficient to support the court’s finding. Counsel also explained that the record does not reveal that trial counsel failed to assist his client in determining whether to plead true to the enhancements and therefore a finding of ineffective assistance cannot be made. We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review shows that the evidence presented during the bench trial is sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the punishment assessed was within the range permitted by law. We have found no arguable issue warranting reversal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Per Curiam Do not publish. 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.