Murray Watson, Jr.; Pecos Higher Education Authority; Brazos Higher Education Authority; Texas Bond Review Board; George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Carol Keeton Rylander, James E. "Pete" Laney, Board Member

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2000 » Murray Watson, Jr.; Pecos Higher Education Authority; Brazos Higher Education Authority; Texas Bond Review Board; George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Carol Keeton Rylander, James E. "Pete" Laney, Board Member

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-00-00139-CV

Case Date: 10/19/2000

Plaintiff: Brack Earl Daniels

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County

Preview:Brack Earl Daniels v. State of Texas--Appeal from
350th District Court of Taylor County
Opinion filed September 18, 2008
Opinion filed September 18, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
Nos. 11-08-00007-CR & 11-08-00008-CR
BRACK EARL DANIELS, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 7445D & 7981D
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Brack Earl Daniels appeals from two judgments adjudicating his guilt. In Cause No. 11-08-00007-CR, appellant
originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana in a drug free zone. Pursuant to the plea
bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for
four years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. In Cause No. 11-08-00008-CR, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense
of evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed
appellant on community supervision for three years, and assessed a $750 fine. At the hearing on the State=s motions to
adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations. In each case, the trial court found the allegations
to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and adjudicated his guilt. In Cause No. 11-08-00007-CR, the
trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for six years and assessed a $1,000 fine. In Cause No. 11-08-00008-CR,
the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for twenty months in a state jail facility and assessed a $750 fine.
We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case. The motions are supported by briefs
in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has
concluded that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of each brief and advised
appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel=s briefs. Responses have been filed.
In each case, appellant has filed a response arguing that the trial court erred by entering a nunc pro tunc order
correcting the degree of his possession offense stated in the order deferring adjudication of guilt from a state jail
felony to a third degree felony. Appellant also asserts that his due process rights were violated and that his trial counsel
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9140.html[8/20/2013 7:31:02 PM]

allowed him to enter guilty pleas while two warrants were outstanding. Appellant further argues that he does not Asee
any credits issued on any of [his] time sheets@ for time he contends that he has served.
The record before this court does not support appellant=s contentions. Appellant cannot raise this collateral attack on
the order deferring the adjudication of guilt in a direct appeal from the judgment adjudicating his guilt. Nix v. State, 65
S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Moreover, we note that the order nunc pro tunc was properly entered. All of
appellant=s contentions have been considered, and each is overruled.
Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the
appeals are without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions for
discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R.
App. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).
The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
September 18, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9140.html[8/20/2013 7:31:02 PM]

Download 9140.pdf