Richard Lynn White v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-07-00281-CR NO. 12-07-00282-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RICHARD LYNN WHITE, APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 241ST V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Richard Lynn White appeals from two convictions for aggravated assault. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The State waived the filing of a brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant shot his wife and a bystander outside a hospital in Tyler, Texas. He was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. One offense was a second degree felony because it was alleged that Appellant caused serious bodily injury to another while using a deadly weapon. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2007). The second offense was a first degree felony because it was alleged that Appellant used a deadly weapon to cause serious bodily injury to a family member. See id. § 22.02(b)(1). Appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to each offense without a plea agreement. Following the preparation of a presentence report and a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of imprisonment for the second degree felony offense and life imprisonment for the first degree felony offense, along with a fine of $10,000 in each case. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in each case. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant Appellant s counsel s motions for leave to withdraw. Opinion delivered July 9, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Appellant s counsel certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in these causes. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief. 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.
