David Gene Thomas Conaway v. The State of TexasAppeal from 432nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00074-CR DAVID GENE THOMAS CONAWAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1253390D Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 2, 2012, David Gene Thomas Conaway pled guilty to sexual assault of a child under the age of seventeen. Adjudication was deferred, and Conaway was placed on ten years community supervision. On December 19, 2012, the State filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging four violations of the terms of deferred adjudication. Conaway entered an open plea of true as to the first two violations, and the State waived the remaining two allegations. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Conaway guilty and sentenced him to twenty years confinement. Conaway s attorney on appeal 1 has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record and has found no issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743 44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel discussed the case with Conaway and told him that based on his review of the record, an appeal would be considered frivolous. Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Conaway on May 15, 2013, along with his motion to withdraw in this case. In his letter to Conaway, 1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. ยง 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 counsel advised him that he had the right to submit a response to [the Anders] brief to this Court to raise any points [Conaway] felt [counsel] had missed. A pro se response has not been filed. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire record and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel s assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court s judgment. 2 Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: July 29, 2013 July 30, 2013 Do Not Publish 2 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accord with Anders, grant counsel s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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 either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
