Sedrick Anthony Daughtery v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 6, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-22-00347-CR
__________

SEDRICK ANTHONY DAUGHTERY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14172-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Sedrick Anthony Daughtery, was convicted of aggravated sexual
assault, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West 2019).
The jury found the enhancement allegation to be “true,” and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at imprisonment for life in the Correctional Institutions Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $10,000 fine. See PENAL § 12.42(b).
The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
At the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the State called eleven witnesses.
Samantha Wreyford told the jury that around midnight on September 28, 2012, she
went for a walk to a neighborhood park after a fight with her common-law husband.
A man in a red pickup, whom she later identified as Appellant, drove up and asked
if she had any money. He got out of the pickup, brandished a knife, and forced
Wreyford into his pickup. Appellant drove Wreyford to a house where he forced her
onto the floor and penetrated her vagina with his penis twice.
The nurse who performed Wreyford’s sexual assault exam collected foreign
DNA that was subsequently linked to Appellant. She also observed abrasion to the
cervix demonstrating “that there was a tremendous amount of force used with sexual
contact.”
Stephanie Ann Holt testified that Appellant sexually assaulted her at
knifepoint in a substantially similar manner on July 15, 2012. The DNA collected
during her sexual assault exam was also linked to Appellant.
During the punishment phase, the State called seven witnesses, including
Wreyford, Holt, and two additional victims who testified that they were sexually
assaulted by Appellant at knifepoint. Appellant pled “not true” to the enhancement
allegation. The State introduced judgments reflecting his 1986 conviction for
aggravated assault against a peace officer, and his 2006 conviction for possession of
cocaine.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
2
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief on November 27,
2023, in which he requested his docket sheets, but did not address the merits of the
case. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may
only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion
explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that
arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new
counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree with court-appointed counsel that
no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
June 6, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
1
We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3