Quirinius Daron Wilson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 12-12-00047-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS QUIRINIUS DARON WILSON, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Quirinius Daron Wilson appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana. 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). We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces, a state jail felony, 1 and entered a plea of guilty to that offense. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed, that all allegations pleaded in the indictment were true and correct. The trial court accepted Appellant=s plea, found that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant s guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. 2 The trial court also 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(3) (West 2010). 2 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (West Supp. 2012). ordered that Appellant pay court costs and restitution. Later, the State filed a first amended application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant and his attorney signed a written plea admonishment and stipulation of evidence in which Appellant admitted as true all fifteen paragraphs of the allegations in the State s application. Further, Appellant pleaded Atrue@ to the State s application. The trial court found that Appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision, granted the State s application, and adjudged Appellant guilty as charged as alleged in the indictment. The trial court assessed Appellant=s punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, a $10,000 fine, court costs, and restitution to be determined. However, the trial court ordered that imposition of the sentence be suspended and that Appellant be placed on community supervision for a period of five years. 3 On July 27, 2011, the State filed a first amended application to revoke Appellant s community supervision, alleging that he had violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant and his attorney signed a written plea admonishment and stipulation of evidence in which Appellant admitted as true all seven paragraphs of the allegations in the State s application. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded Atrue@ to all seven paragraphs in the State s application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found it true that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, a $10,000 fine, and court costs. 4 This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our review of Appellant=s brief, it is apparent that his counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 3 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3 (West Supp. 2012). 4 An individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished by confinement in a state jail for any term of not more than two years or less than 180 days and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35(a), (b) (West Supp. 2012). 2 App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. 5 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. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant=s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we affirm the trial court s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. 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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 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. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered October 31, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 5 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 31, 2012 NO. 12-12-00047-CR QUIRINIUS DARON WILSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114-2189-03) 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. 4

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.