Gary Thomas Crayton v. The State of Texas Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00588-CR Gary Thomas CRAYTON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CR9248 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 8, 2021 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Gary Thomas Crayton pled no contest to sexual assault of a child pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. On June 6, 2016, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Crayton on community supervision for a period of five years. In October 2020, the State filed an amended motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Crayton violated various conditions of his community supervision. At the subsequent hearing, Crayton pled true to the allegation that he tested positive for methamphetamines in violation of a condition of his community supervision. On October 29, 2020, the trial court adjudicated Crayton guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison, granting 04-20-00588-CR Crayton credit for the time he had served. On November 30, 2020, the trial court signed a Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc that corrected a clerical error in the recitation of the time credited to Crayton in the judgment. Crayton’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record to Crayton, and informed Crayton of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court then notified Crayton of the deadline for him to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel that no reversible error is shown by the record and the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Crayton’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.). 1 Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Crayton 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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.
