Anthony Paul Grimes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 142nd District Court of Midland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed August 17, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-17-00022-CR __________ ANTHONY PAUL GRIMES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR37667 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Anthony Paul Grimes of the offense of possession of more than one gram but less than four grams of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (West 2017). Upon Appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement allegation, the trial court assessed punishment and placed Appellant on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke and an amended motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to all four of the State’s allegations in the amended motion to revoke. The trial court found all of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for ten years and the unpaid balance of the $900 fine. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the appellate record. Counsel has also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). 1 By letter, this court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. 2 We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM August 17, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 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.
