Jolly Dee Neely v. The State of Texas Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00309-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOLLY DEE NEELY, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Jolly Dee Neely appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 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 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and pleaded “not guilty.” The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for six years. 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 relates that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it contains no jurisdictional defects and no reversible error to present for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1 We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error. CONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 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 these cases 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 pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered June 8, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed. 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JUNE 8, 2016 NO. 12-14-00309-CR JOLLY DEE NEELY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0479-14) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 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., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, 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.
