Harold Allen Shelby v. The State of Texas Appeal from 66th District Court of Hill County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-19-00289-CR HAROLD ALLEN SHELBY, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. F317-19 MEMORANDUM OPINION Harold Allen Shelby was convicted of Aggravated Assault by Threat and Aggravated Assault, both with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 50 years in prison for each count. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Shelby's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that counsel has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in counsel’s opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); 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, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). In our review, we have paid particular attention to the issues identified in appellant's pro se response to counsel's brief in support of the motion to withdraw. After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined 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 motion to withdraw from representation of Shelby is granted. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed Motion granted Opinion delivered and filed August 17, 2020 Do not publish [CRPM] Shelby v. State Page 2
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.
