Earl Charles Reynolds v. State of Texas--Appeal from 188th District Court of Gregg County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-00-00218-CR
______________________________
EARL CHARLES REYNOLDS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 27356-A
Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.
Opinion by Justice Ross
O P I N I O N

Earl Charles Reynolds appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Reynolds pled guilty without a plea agreement, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. In the same proceeding, Reynolds also pled guilty to three other aggravated assault offenses and to one unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon offense. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment for one of the aggravated assault offenses and to ten years' imprisonment for each of the other aggravated assault offenses and for the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon offense. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The trial court then recessed the proceedings and took up the State's motion to revoke Reynolds' community supervision, which was previously imposed after Reynolds was convicted of assault on a public servant. Reynolds pled true to the State's single allegation. The trial court revoked Reynolds' community supervision and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The trial court announced from the bench that Reynolds' sentence would be stacked on the sentences he received for the aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon offenses. However, the judgment does not contain a stacking order.

Reynolds has also filed appeals from the other three aggravated assault convictions, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon conviction, and the revocation of his community supervision. We address each of those appeals in separate opinions.

Reynolds' attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. He has evaluated the record and has found no error that arguably supports an appeal. The brief thus meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Reynolds did not file a response pro se.

The record reflects that Reynolds waived his right to a jury in open court and in a document signed by his attorney, the prosecutor, the trial judge, and him. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The trial court accepted his waiver, noted it in the judgment, and ordered that it be entered in the minutes of the court. Id.

The record also shows the trial court gave Reynolds the admonishments required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001) both orally and in writing. Furthermore, it appears from the record that Reynolds was mentally competent, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, that he was ably assisted by counsel, and that the trial court satisfied itself that these conditions were met. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(b) (Vernon 1989). The trial court also ordered preparation of a presentence investigation report as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 9(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001).

The record further shows that Reynolds signed a written waiver of his right to the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2001). The trial court admitted evidence of Reynolds' guilt in the form of a written stipulation of evidence, police reports, and witness statements as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15.

In his Anders brief, Reynolds' attorney observes that the trial court sentenced Reynolds to less than the maximum punishment for the aggravated assault offense at issue in this appeal. The trial court also ordered that the sentence for the aggravated assault conviction run concurrently with his sentence for the other aggravated assault convictions and the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon conviction. Thus, his attorney concludes, the sentence is not disproportionate to the offense or otherwise unconscionable. We agree.

We have also conducted our own review of the record and discern no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

 

Donald R. Ross

Justice

 

Date Submitted: October 15, 2001

Date Decided: October 16, 2001

 

Do Not Publish