Dustin Allen Eckols v. The State of Texas Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00782-CR Dustin Allen ECKOLS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-2282-CR-C Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 7, 2020 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Appellant Dustin Allen Eckols filed a pretrial motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. He, thereafter, entered into a plea agreement, in which he preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court convicted Eckols of the second degree felony offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced Eckols to ten years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04. Eckols now appeals. Eckols’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. 04-19-00782-CR Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Eckols with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record and informed Eckols of his right to review the record and to file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Eckols thereafter filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, Eckols’s pro se brief, and the State’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Eckols 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and any such petition must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4. 1 -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.
