Clifford Eugene Osborn v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 251st District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0431-CR NO. 07-06-0432-CR NO. 07-06-0433-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B MARCH 25, 2008 ______________________________ CLIFFORD EUGENE OSBORN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NOS. 17,126-C;17,127-C;18,231-C; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. After a jury trial, Clifford Eugene Osborn was convicted of robbery, aggravated kidnaping, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After finding the enhancements true, the jury assessed punishment at life for the robbery conviction, life for the aggravated kidnaping, and twenty years for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Appellant s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant s appeals are without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a pro se brief or response. By letter dated December 31, 2007, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by January 30, 2008, if he wished to do so. After requesting and receiving an extension of time, appellant filed a response wherein he contends 1) the trial court erred in refusing to grant the motion to suppress his statement, and 2) he was denied his right to counsel and meaningful access to the courts.2 In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed several possible issues for appeal: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, 2) the denial of motions to suppress appellant s statement and his identification, 3) the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of true to the 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Appellant contends he requested counsel but was not perm itted to talk to an attorney for approxim ately six m onths after his arrest for the subject offenses. The record shows that appellant told Officer Paul Horn on May 24, 2005, after ten m inutes of questioning, that he would rather not say anything m ore without speaking to a lawyer. This was an invocation of appellant s Fifth Am endm ent right to be free of custodial questioning without the presence of counsel. See Russell v. State, 215 S.W .3d 531, 535 (Tex. App. W aco 2007, pet. ref d). There is no indication that police continued to interrogate appellant after that tim e. This request is not the sam e as a request for appointm ent of counsel under a defendant s Sixth Am endm ent right. Thereafter, the record shows that appellant was indicted on Novem ber 9, 2005, and that he filed a request for attorney on Decem ber 5, 2005. Counsel was appointed the sam e day and appellant did not proceed to trial until October 2006. The record is unclear as to appellant s whereabouts during the period from May 24, 2005, until his indictm ent. 2 enhancement paragraphs during the punishment phase, 4) the appropriateness of the punishments assessed, and 5) the effectiveness of counsel. However, appellate counsel has explained why each argument lacks merit. 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 review has failed to reveal reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgments are affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 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.
