Treboria Lymyous-Dew Wallace v. The State of TexasAppeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00224-CR TREBORIA LYMYOUS-DEW WALLACE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 42271-B Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Treboria Lymyous-Dew Wallace appeals from his conviction, on an open plea of guilty, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial was held to the court, and he was sentenced to six years imprisonment. Wallace s attorney on appeal filed a brief on April 30, 2014, which states that he has reviewed the record. Counsel has provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding, briefly explaining the procedural history and stating that he has found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Although Wallace was informed of his right to file a pro se response, he has not done so. Counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743 44 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). As also required by Anders, counsel has filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Counsel mailed a copy of his brief to Wallace on April 27, 2014, along with a copy of his motion to withdraw and a letter informing Wallace of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the appellate record and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel s assessment that no arguable 2 issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: June 30, 2014 July 1, 2014 Do Not Publish 1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accord with Anders, grant counsel s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 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.
