Taylor Kyle Shackelford v. The State of Texas Appeal from 356th District Court of Hardin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00192-CR __________________ TAYLOR KYLE SHACKELFORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25412 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Taylor Kyle Shackelford appeals his conviction for aggravated assault against a public servant with a deadly weapon. We affirm. In 2019, Shackelford was charged by indictment with aggravated assault against a public servant with a deadly weapon for striking a sheriff’s deputy in the face with an arrow by use of a crossbow, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(b)(2). Shackelford pleaded “not guilty” to the aggravated assault and “untrue” to an enhancement for a previous felony conviction for deadly conduct. After a trial, a 1 jury found Shackelford guilty as charged, found the prior felony enhancement true, and assessed punishment at sixty years’ imprisonment. Shackelford appealed. On appeal, the court-appointed attorney for Shackelford filed a brief wherein the attorney stated that he has reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Shackelford to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Shackelford. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree with Shackelford’s counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Shackelford’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on March 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered April 6, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. Shackelford may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1
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.
