Irvin Willis Veale v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 07-11-00226-CR; 07-11-00227-CR; 07-11-00228-CR; 07-11-00229-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 13, 2012 IRVIN WILLIS VEALE, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NOS. 62,127-E, 62,128-E, 62,129-E, 63,344-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, JUDGE Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Irvin Willis Veale, appeals his three convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child1 and one conviction for indecency with a child.2 After finding appellant guilty of the offenses noted, the jury assessed a sentence of confinement of 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) on each of the aggravated sexual assault convictions and a term of confinement in the ID-TDCJ 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011). 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (West 2011). of five years on the indecency with a child conviction. Based upon the jury s verdicts on punishment, the trial court ordered the confinement on the aggravated sexual assault cases to be served concurrently and the confinement on the indecency with a child case to be served consecutively, following the completion of the confinement on the aggravated sexual assault cases. We affirm. 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 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. Id. 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. 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 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed. 3 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 3 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.
