Brian Ellis Patrick v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 354th District Court of Hunt County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00079-CR
______________________________
BRIAN ELLIS PATRICK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23,330
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian Ellis Patrick waived his right to a jury trial, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, (1) and submitted the issue of punishment to the trial court. The trial court sentenced Patrick to ten years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his sentence in another case. (2) On appeal, Patrick's counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel concludes, after a careful review of the record, that no reversible error exists in the proceedings below. Based on our independent review of the record, we concur with counsel's assessment and affirm the trial court's judgment in this case.

Before accepting Patrick's guilty plea, the trial court admonished Patrick in accordance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2006). See also Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A presentence investigation report was prepared in accordance with Article 42.12, Section 9 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and was presented to the trial court without objection. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 9 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

Patrick admitted at trial that he had possessed and carried a firearm June 30, 2005. He testified that he had awakened earlier that morning and cleaned the gun with the intent of selling it to a friend from Arkansas. When he left his home to go to that of his sister, he stuck the gun in his pants as he was leaving his house. Patrick further testified to having been released from a state-jail facility only a "month or so" earlier. This testimony (in addition to other written and oral confessions) provides sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment of conviction.

The trial court assessed a ten-year sentence, which is within the statutory range of punishment provided for the third-degree offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 12.34(a) (Vernon 2003), 46.04.

In short, we find no procedural or substantive irregularities in the proceedings below that require reversal of the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. (3)

 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

 

Date Submitted: January 24, 2007

Date Decided: January 26, 2007

 

Do Not Publish

1. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 46.04 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

2. Patrick has also appealed the judgment in that case. For information on that case, see our opinion issued this day in Patrick v. State, cause number 06-06-00078-CR.

3. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Patrick in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Patrick wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Patrick must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Patrick must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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.