Justin Eugene Clark v. The State of TexasAppeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00155-CR JUSTIN EUGENE CLARK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court No. F-1261948-Q Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Justin Eugene Clark appeals his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in Dallas County 1 and sentence of two years confinement. In a companion case, also decided today, Clark has appealed a related conviction for aggravated robbery, accompanied by an affirmative deadly-weapon finding, and his sentence of ten years imprisonment. In the two companion appeals, Clark has filed a combined brief, in which he raises a single issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a finding made in the aggravated robbery appeal. We addressed his sole issue in detail in our opinion of this date in cause number 06-1300156-CR. The judgment in this case, convicting Clark simply of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, does not contain a deadly-weapon finding. Since this case does not contain a deadlyweapon finding, Clark s sole issue in this case has not demonstrated reversible error. 2 1 Originally appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov t CODE ANN. ยง 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Fifth Court of Appeals and that of this court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 Clark s appellate attorney provided an extensive and zealous defense in the companion case. In this case, there is no Anders brief or a motion to withdraw. Out of an abundance of caution, however, we have independently reviewed the entire record and find no genuinely arguable issue for the appeal in this case. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743 44 (1967). 2 We affirm the trial court s judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: May 8, 2014 May 21, 2014 Do Not Publish 3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.
