Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-26-2022

Case Style:

Lavelle Simpson v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 04-20-00542-CR

Judge: Liza A. Rodriguez


Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

On appeal from the 437th Judicial District Court of Bexar

Plaintiff's Attorney: Laura E. Durbin
Joe D. Gonzales

Defendant's Attorney:

San Antonio, TX - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

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 - 855-853-4800


San Antonio, Texas – Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with a evading arrest and detention and with possession of cocaine charges.

Lavelle Simpson was indicted with two felony offenses. In the underlying cause, Cause
No. 2018CR10236, he was indicted with evading arrest and detention, second offense (or habitual).
In Cause No. 2018CR10237, he was indicted, as a habitual offender, with possession of cocaine
in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. In Cause No. 2018CR10238, he was
indicted as a repeat offender of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In each cause, he filed
pretrial motions to suppress and motions to quash, which were denied by the trial court. He then
entered into a plea-bargain agreement. In Cause No. 2018CR10236, he pled guilty to evading
- 2 -
detention and arrest, and pled true to a repeater enhancement. In Cause No. 2018CR10237, he pled
guilty to possessing cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and pled
true to a repeater enhancement. Pursuant to the plea-bargain agreement, Cause No. 2018CR10238
was taken into consideration at sentencing. In accordance with the plea-bargain agreement,
Simpson was sentenced in Cause No. 2018CR10236 and Cause No. 2018CR10237 to eight years
of imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00, with the sentences to run concurrently. He then appealed
both judgments in Cause No. 2018CR10236 and Cause No. 2018CR10237.
Simpson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal
authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes
that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional
evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45;
High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief
and motion to withdraw, and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his
own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally,
counsel advised appellant that if he wished to review the record, he must file a motion in this court
and enclosed a form motion for that purpose. See id. Simpson did not file such a motion and did
not file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.);
Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
- 3 -

Outcome: No substitute counsel will be appointed. 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion;
or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in 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.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case