Terrell Eugene Hicks a/k/a Terrell Hicks v. The State of TexasAppeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00226-CR TERRELL EUGENE HICKS A/K/A TERRELL HICKS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1294857D, Honorable Everett Young, Presiding March 31, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Terrell Eugene Hicks, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation1 and was placed on two years deferred adjudication community service. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate. After hearing the evidence and appellant s plea, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the burglary of a habitation offense and, subsequently, sentenced appellant to a term of four years 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011). confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will 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. [Panel Op.] 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) (en banc). 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 reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed the grounds suggested by counsel 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. 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.