Frederick Dewayne Strickland v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 47th District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0317-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JUNE 29, 2009 ______________________________ FREDERICK DEWAYNE STRICKLAND, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 20005-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Frederick Dwayne Strickland, was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to 17 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $5,000 on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals. Appellant s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.1 By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 1 Appellant filed two requests for extensions of time to file a response to the Anders brief, however, appellant never filed a response. 2 Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX . R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
