Corey Whitting v. The State of Texas Appeal from 278th District Court of Walker County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-18-00174-CR COREY WHITTING, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 278th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 26519 MEMORANDUM OPINION Corey Whitting entered a plea of guilty to the offense of obstruction or retaliation. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Whitting on community supervision for two years and assessed a $1000 fine. On August 28, 2015, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, and on June 16, 2016, the State filed an Amended Motion to Adjudicate. Whitting entered a plea of true to some of the allegations in the State’s Motion to Adjudicate and not true to others. After a hearing, the trial court found seven of the allegations to be true, convicted Whitting of the offense of obstruction or retaliation, and assessed punishment at four years confinement and a $1000 fine. We affirm. Whitting’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Whitting of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Whitting did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Whitting is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Whitting a copy of our decision, notify Whitting of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court Whitting v. State Page 2 a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed November 14, 2018 Do not publish [CR25] Whitting v. State Page 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.
