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. 06-00-00219-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. 27358-A
Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.
Opinion by Chief Justice Cornelius
O P I N I O N

Earl Charles Reynolds pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. In the same proceeding, Reynolds also pleaded 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 pleaded 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 pro se response.

We have this day released our opinion in Cause Number 06-00-00218-CR, Earl Charles Reynolds v. The State of Texas. Because the briefs and arguments are identical to those raised in this appeal, for the reasons stated in that opinion, we agree with counsel's assessment of the record and affirm the trial court's judgment.

William J. Cornelius

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: October 15, 2001

Date Decided: October 16, 2001

 

Do Not Publish