Louis Hancock Daitch v. The State of TexasAppeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed October 30, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01485-CR LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F04-44009-J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang Louis Hancock Daitch appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for the offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years imprisonment and ordered the sentence to run consecutively with the sentence in cause no. F11-45640-J (cause no. 05-12-01487-CR). On appeal, appellant s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel s brief, appellant s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the first page of the judgment incorrectly states this sentence shall run concurrently. The record shows the trial judge ordered the sentence in this case to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in case no. F11-45640-J. The paragraph containing the cumulation order is located on the second page of the judgment. Accordingly, we modify the section of the trial court s judgment that says punishment and place of confinement to state this sentence will run consecutively with the sentence in case no. F1145640-J. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27 28; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529 30. As modified, we affirm the trial court s judgment. /s/ Douglas Lang DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121485F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant No. 05-12-01485-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F04-44009-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Moseley and Brown participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled Punishment and Place of Confinement is modified to show This sentence shall run consecutively (see below). As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. Judgment entered October 30, 2013. /s/ Douglas Lang DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE -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.