Neville Clinton Parks, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 159th District Court of Angelina County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-11-00129-CR 12-11-00130-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS NEVILLE CLINTON PARKS, JR., APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 159TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Neville Clinton Parks appeals his convictions for burglary and three counts of injury to a child. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief asserting compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2011, an Angelina County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant alleging that he had committed the offense of burglary. As alleged, the offense was a second degree felony because the grand jury alleged that he had entered a habitation.1 That same month, Appellant agreed to waive his right to be indicted by the grand jury on another unrelated criminal matter. In that case, the district attorney charged Appellant by information with three counts of injury to a child.2 As alleged, those offenses were first degree felonies because the 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (West 2011). 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(2), (e) (West 2011). 1 information alleged Appellant had knowingly or intentionally caused serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury to each of three children. Appellant pleaded guilty to all four offenses. The trial court held a sentencing hearing in April 2011. Following that hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years on the burglary offense and fifty years on each of the injury to a child offenses. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.3 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 ( After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal. ). Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the 3 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 2 opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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(a). 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; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion issued November 23, 2011. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (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.
