Willie Darnell Cleveland Sr. v. The State of TexasAppeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-13-00165-CR NO. 09-13-00166-CR NO. 09-13-00167-CR ________________ WILLIE DARNELL CLEVELAND SR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-08-08833-CR, Counts I, II, and III __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Willie Darnell Cleveland Sr. pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against a public servant, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. A jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine on the charges of aggravated assault against a public servant and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and twenty years and a $10,000 fine on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. 1 Cleveland s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 30, 2013, we granted an extension of time for Cleveland to file a pro se brief in each case. Cleveland filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments of conviction.1 1 Cleveland may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 1, 2014 Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 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.
