David Galvan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 147th District Court of Travis County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00555-CR David Galvan, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 3012982, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant David Galvan guilty of intentionally causing bodily injury to a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(3) (West 2003). The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for seventy-two years. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant also filed a pro se brief. In it, he contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt as mandated in Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 161-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The court of criminal appeals overruled this portion of the Geesa opinion in Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The Paulson opinion also overruled Reyes v. State, 938 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), in which it was held that the failure to give the Geesa instruction was automatic reversible error. Appellant was tried after Paulson was announced. Appellant s sole pro se point of error is without merit. We have reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. David Puryear, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: July 11, 2003 Do Not Publish 2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.