Dominic Talies Potter v. The State of Texas Appeal from 212th District Court of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 8, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00455-CR DOMINIC TALIES POTTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16-CR-3441 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Dominic Talies Potter appeals his conviction for escape. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.06. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a pro se response. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
