Preston James Byerly v. State

NO.  07-10-0425-CR NO. 07-10-0426-CR NO. 07-10-0427-CR NO. 07-10-0428-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B MAY 4, 2011 ______________________________ PRESTON JAMES BYERLY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________ FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; NOS. 1158634D; 1159402D; 1158631D; 1160317D; HON. RUBEN GONZALEZ, PRESIDING ______________________________ Memorandum Opinion ______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Preston James Byerly (appellant) appeals his multiple convictions and judgments for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Upon pleading guilty to the four indictments, and after presenting punishment evidence, appellant was sentenced to forty years in prison for each offense. Before us is appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated March 11, 2011, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own response and set April 11, 2011, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed six potential areas for appeal. They included 1) the adequacy of the indictments, 2) the trial court’s jurisdiction, 3) whether the open plea of guilty was valid, 4) trial court error in denying appellant’s motion for new trial, 5) possible punishment error including a discussion on cruel and unusual punishment and 6) disproportionate sentencing. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why none of the issues required reversal on appeal. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with those conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). style-name:"Title Char"; mso-style-priority:10; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Title; mso-ansi-font-size:26.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:26.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#17365D; letter-spacing:.25pt; mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;} span.SubtitleChar {mso-style-name:"Subtitle Char"; mso-style-priority:11; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Subtitle; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#4F81BD; letter-spacing:.75pt; font-style:italic;} span.QuoteChar {mso-style-name:"Quote Char"; mso-style-priority:29; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Quote; color:black; font-style:italic;} span.IntenseQuoteChar {mso-style-name:"Intense Quote Char"; mso-style-priority:30; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Intense Quote"; color:#4F81BD; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic;} p.NewDocument, li.NewDocument, div.NewDocument {mso-style-name:"New Document"; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-language:EN-US;} span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma; mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-language:EN-US;} span.HeaderChar {mso-style-name:"Header Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Header; mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-language:EN-US;} span.FooterChar {mso-style-name:"Footer Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Footer; mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-language:EN-US;} span.FootnoteTextChar {mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Footnote Text"; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} span.GramE {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:Arial; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;} /* Page Definitions */ @page {mso-footnote-separator:url("07-10-0312.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") fs; mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("07-10-0312.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") fcs; mso-endnote-separator:url("07-10-0312.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") es; mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("07-10-0312.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") ecs;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-title-page:yes; mso-footer:url("07-10-0312.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") f1; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> NO. 07-10-00312-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 RANDY LACKEY, APPELLANT v. ROBERT MCCOOL, APPELLEE FROM THE 287TH DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY; NO. 7764; HONORABLE GORDON HOUSTON GREEN, JUDGE Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Randy Lackey, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal in cause number 7764 in the 287th District Court of Bailey County, Texas.[1] By letter dated July 29, 2010, Lackey was notified that, among other things, a filing fee of $175 had not been paid, noting that failure to do so within ten days could result in dismissal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). No fee having been received within the deadline, by letter dated August 18, 2010, Lackey was again advised of the outstanding filing fee and the consequences of failing to pay. He was also specifically notified of and given the opportunity to, in lieu of paying the filing fee, file an affidavit of indigence on or before September 8, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3; see also Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office, 193 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. 2006) (holding that a court of appeals can dismiss an appeal for noncompliance only after allowing a reasonable time to correct a defect). Despite two notices and a reasonable time in which to comply with this Court's request, Lackey has failed to respond. Consequently, this Court is authorized to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Mackey K. Hancock Justice [1] The clerk’s record has not been received in this cause and Lackey’s notice of appeal simply indicates that Lackey seeks appeal “in Cause # 7764 to The District Court, Bailey County, Texas, 287th Judicial District.”