William James Peddicord v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-04-0055-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 18, 2004
______________________________
WILLIAM JAMES PEDDICORD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 48220-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant William James Peddicord appeals his conviction for possession of a
controlled substanced, enhanced. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, but without benefit of an
agreed recommendation from the State as to punishment, the trial court found that the
evidence substantiated a finding of guilty and assessed punishment at 45 years in prison.
Appellant appealed.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1
brief wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the
1
Anders v. California, 386 U .S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (19 67).
appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel attached a copy of a
letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error
and of appellant’s right to file a response or brief pro se. By letter dated June 29, 2004,
this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set July
26, 2004, as the deadline to do so. On July 21, appellant filed a motion to extend the time
to file a brief, which motion was granted and the deadline extended to August 25, 2004.
This court also abated the appeal to obtain a completed certification of appellant’s right to
appeal. That certification has been received, and the appeal has been reinstated. To
date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, or another request for an extension.2
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
five potential areas for appeal. They involved 1) the voluntariness of appellant’s plea, 2)
whether appellant received a separate punishment hearing, 3) whether appellant was
informed of the correct range of punishment, 4) the court’s jurisdiction, and 5) whether
appellant’s prior juvenile adjudication was properly alleged in the indictment as an
enhancement.
However, appellate counsel then satisfactorily explained why each
argument lacked merit.
We have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant
to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed
to reveal any error.
2
Appellant did send the court a letter, received on September 29, 2004, in which he stated that he had
written his lawyer to te ll her he need “a time extention [sic].” He also stated he has sent in a “time reduction”
to several persons and wants to continue to try to get his tim e re duced. B ecause an exten sion was pre viously
granted him, because he does not explain why another is needed, and because he fa ils to specify the length
of the extension so ugh t, we overru le his reque st for a furth er de lay.
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
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.
