Anthony Dewayne Buck v. State of Texas Appeal from 69th District Court of Hartley County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-16-00442-CR ANTHONY DEWAYNE BUCK, APPELLANT V. STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 69th District Court Hartley County, Texas Trial Court No. 1284H, Honorable Ron Enns, Presiding September 11, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Following a plea of guilty to the bench, appellant Anthony Dewayne Buck was convicted of the second degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation.1 The State did not provide a recommendation as to punishment, but appellant and the State entered into an agreed sentencing stipulation that placed a limit on appellant’s imprisonment at ten years. 1 The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years of TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2016). confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.2 In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders3 brief in support of his motion to withdraw. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appellant was indicted for burglary of a habitation. Counsel’s brief states he can see no arguably meritorious issue arising from the trial court’s admonishments at the plea hearing, or from appellant’s plea of guilty. He finds nothing to suggest appellant’s plea was involuntary. At the plea hearing, appellant acknowledged he signed a judicial confession admitting he committed the offense of burglary of a habitation. The State presented the testimony of the owner of the home appellant burglarized and the officer who responded to that burglary. In support of his motion to withdraw, appellant’s appellate counsel has certified he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has further demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to review the record and providing him with a motion to access the record, and (3) informing him he 2 The State also introduced, as punishment evidence, evidence related to a motor vehicle collision that occurred a few weeks before appellant’s burglary of the habitation, and for which appellant had been indicted for the offense of manslaughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.04 (West 2016). The trooper who responded to the collision also testified at the hearing. 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 may file a pro se response if he desired to do so. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on filing a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court granted appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant did not file a response. Nor did appellant file the motion his counsel provided him requesting a copy of the appellate record. We have conducted our own review of the entire record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to independently determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support the appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish. 4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
