Charles Anthony Gill v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 294th District Court of Van Zandt County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-11-00282-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS CHARLES ANTHONY GILL, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 294TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Charles Anthony Gill appeals the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, following which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with injury to a child and pleaded guilty. The trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed him on community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s community supervision alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions thereof. On July 13, 2011, a hearing was conducted on the State s motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated multiple terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State s motion. Thereafter, the trial court revoked Appellant s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of injury to a child, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant=s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant s Anders brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: 1 (1) he is not guilty of the underlying offense of injury to a child; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) his guilty plea was not a product of his exercising his own free will because his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty so that he could receive community supervision; (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the underlying proceeding, which resulted in his pleading guilty ; (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the State s motion to proceed to final adjudication; (6) he was denied a fair hearing on the State s motion to adjudicate due to prosecutorial misconduct; (7) certain alleged violations of his community supervision should have been excused because he attempted to have his community supervision transferred to a more convenient office and attempted to pay fees under the terms of his community supervision, but his payments were not accepted; and (8) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826B27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 1 We have construed Appellant=s brief and interpreted the issues raised therein liberally in the interest of justice. 2 CONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered August 31, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT AUGUST 31, 2012 NO. 12-11-00282-CR CHARLES ANTHONY GILL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 294th Judicial District Court of Van Zandt County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CR06-00311) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant=s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
