Kelly Mayfield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0360-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
______________________________
KELLY SHAWN MAYFIELD, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 50,278-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kelly Shawn Mayfield, appeals his conviction for unauthorized use of a
motor vehicle, twice enhanced by prior felony convictions, and sentence of five years
incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and
a fine of $3,000. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We affirm.
Appellant was indicted for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle enhanced by two
prior felony convictions. A jury subsequently found appellant guilty of unauthorized use of
a motor vehicle. Appellant entered pleas of true to the enhancement paragraphs of the
indictment and the jury sentenced appellant to five years confinement and a fine of $3,000.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating
that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record
reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel
thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief presents a chronological
summation of the procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment. See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief has been
forwarded to appellant and that counsel has appropriately advised appellant of his right to
review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s motion and brief. The clerk of
this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s
brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether
there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded.
See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds.
2
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Johnson v. State, 885
S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, writ ref’d).
We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error,
appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
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.
