Lloyd Carlton Parks v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-07-453-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG LLOYD CARLTON PARKS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela On May 18, 2007, appellant, Lloyd Carlton Parks, plead guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . ยง 21.11(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. Concluding that "there are no meritorious issues for appeal," appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. I. Compliance with Anders v. California Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no appealable issues for this Court to consider. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, following his review of the court's file and the transcripts, his research, and his correspondence with appellant, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record including, among other things, a review of grand jury proceedings, pre-trial motions, research and investigation, competency, sentencing, right to present evidence during the guilt/innocence and punishment stages, and right to appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel has informed this Court that he has reviewed the appellate record and concludes there are no arguable grounds for reversal. He has also informed this Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the transcripts in his case and notified appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response to counsel's brief and motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. More than thirty days have passed, and no pro se brief has been filed. II. Independent Review The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to 2 decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."). III. Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel is hereby granted. We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See In re K.D., S.D., and J.R., 127 S.W.2d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam)). ROSE VELA Justice Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 26th day of June, 2008. 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.
