ERIC ALLEN GERLAND v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 107th District Court of Cameron County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-08-00321-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ERIC ALLEN GERLAND, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez On January 27, 2007, appellant, Eric Allen Gerland, was indicted on one count of murder, a first-degree felony. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 19.02(b)(1), (2) (Vernon 2003). The indictment alleged that Gerland (1) intentionally or knowingly caused Cathy Jill Vanderhee s death by striking her head against a metal vent or an unknown object; or (2) with intent to cause serious bodily injury, committed an act clearly dangerous to Vanderhee s life by striking her head against a metal vent or an unknown object, which caused Vanderhee s death. Gerland pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury. The jury found Gerland guilty and assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Gerland according to the jury s verdict. Gerland s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm. I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Gerland s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance arguable points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities. ) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Gerland s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel s motion to withdraw on Gerland, and (3) informed Gerland 2 of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Gerland has filed a pro se response in which he argues that: (1) he was subject to multiplicitous prosecution because the jury was instructed on the two theories of murder contained in the single count indictment; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) he was afforded ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel s brief, Gerland s pro se response, and the State s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, Gerland s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. 1 The Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals has held that the pro se response need not com ply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any m eritorious issues. In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim . App. 2008) (quoting W ilson v. State, 955 S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App. W aco 1997, no pet.)). 3 App. Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that [i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous. ) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Gerland and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX . R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). ________________________ ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Do Not Publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 3rd day of December, 2009. 2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals, he m ust either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review m ust be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last tim ely m otion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review m ust be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should com ply with the requirem ents of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 4

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.