Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 05-25-2022
Case Style:
Eric Nathaniel Reel v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 04-19-00732-CR
Judge:
Luz Elena D. Chapa
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Court:
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
On appeal from The 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Joe D. Gonzales
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Description:
San Antonio, Texas - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with a arson of a building charge.
Reel entered an open plea of no contest to the arson charge and a plea of true to the
enhancement allegation. After considering evidence proffered in support of the plea, including
Reel’s judicial confession, the trial court found Reel guilty and set the matter for a sentencing
hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the court heard further evidence, and Reel confirmed he had
previously been convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court found the
enhancement allegation true, sentenced Reel to thirty years in prison, and granted the State’s
request for an affirmative deadly-weapon finding.
Reel’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he concluded this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and
thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to
withdraw to Reel and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014). Reel was provided access to the appellate record and advised of the
deadline to file a pro se brief.
Reel filed a pro se brief in which he contends, among other things, that he was deprived of
due course of law, denied access to the courts and to counsel of his choosing, and received
ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, he contends the indictment was flawed and that his
assets were seized by jail authorities without due process. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, counsel’s brief, and Reel’s brief. The issues Reel raised in his pro se brief have no arguable
basis, were not preserved, or are not shown by the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (preservation
required); Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (explaining that
direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims
because the record is insufficiently developed). We find no arguable grounds for appeal and
conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
04-19-00732-CR
- 3 -
However, our review discloses several remediable errors in the written judgment: the
judgment incorrectly recites the offense of which Reel was convicted was a first degree felony
instead of a second degree felony1
, and the judgment incorrectly recites Reel had a plea bargain
with the State. Because the written judgment does not accurately reflect the proceedings in the trial
court, we modify the judgment to change the “Degree of Offense:” from “1ST” to “2ND” and to
change the “Terms of Plea Bargain” from “CAP OF THIRTY (30) YEARS TDCJ-ID” to “NONE.”
See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court is
authorized to reform judgment to “make the record speak the truth”).
Outcome: We grant the motion to withdraw filed by Reel’s counsel, modify the trial court’s judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: