Steven Dale Duncan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-10-00204-CR ______________________________ STEVEN DALE DUNCAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 38,917-B Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Steven Dale Duncan appeals from the revocation of his community supervision and the adjudication of his guilt. Duncan had been given deferred adjudication on his plea of guilty pursuant to an agreement to plead guilty to a lesser-included offense. Two months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate due to Duncan s failure to pay fees and fines, to perform community service work, and his failure to report. Duncan stipulated to the truth of each ground for revocation, and at the hearing, pled true to each ground. The trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to eight years imprisonment. Duncan s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Duncan on May 3, 2011, informing him of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. No response has been filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel s assessment 2 that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: July 12, 2011 July 13, 2011 Do Not Publish 1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 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.
