Bryan Daniel French v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00097-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRYAN DANIEL FRENCH, § APPEAL FROM THE 85TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Bryan Daniel French appeals his conviction for tampering with or fabricating physical
evidence. 1 Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. 2 In 2018, the
trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five
years pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.

1
This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket
equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2023).
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(d)(1) (West Supp. 2024). Appellant was indicted for two separate
offenses including aggravated assault family violence in count one and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence
in count two of the indictment. This appeal concerns only the tampering offense in count two of the indictment.
In 2022, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and sentence him to
imprisonment due to several alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision.
Specifically, the State alleged that Appellant committed another criminal offense while on
community supervision, failed to obtain suitable employment, failed to perform community
service as directed, consumed alcohol on two occasions, and failed to submit to alcohol and drug
testing on seven occasions. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in the State’s motion.
At the ensuing hearing, the trial court also heard evidence on a motion to suppress evidence
of another conviction arising from an offense committed by Appellant in Coryell County, Texas,
which it denied. The Coryell County conviction arose from an alleged domestic violence incident
between Appellant and his girlfriend to which Appellant pleaded “guilty.” This offense served as
the basis for the first allegation in the State’s motion that Appellant committed another crime while
on community supervision for the instant case. Immediately after denying Appellant’s motion to
suppress, the trial court heard evidence concerning the State’s motion to adjudicate Appellant’s
guilt.
The detective in the underlying instant case testified about his investigation into the facts
leading to this case, which resulted from the suspicious death of Appellant’s former girlfriend.
Although the authorities believed she was murdered, Appellant ultimately pleaded “guilty” to the
tampering offense. There was evidence that his girlfriend had severe alcohol and mental health
issues. Appellant claimed that she attacked him while having a panic attack. Appellant changed
his version of the events several times, but ultimately admitted that his hands were around the
victim’s throat for several minutes. The detective testified that the medical examiner noted that
the victim had esophageal varices from prolonged alcohol abuse, but he did not believe that
condition contributed to her death. Instead, according to the detective, the medical examiner
observed that the victim sustained two lacerations to blood vessels in her abdomen which showed
bruising, and that her “voicebox had physical damage.”
The detective testified that during the investigation, they learned that Appellant took a
photo of the victim shortly before her death. It appeared to the detective that “she may have still
barely been alive; but in looking at the picture she looks like a woman who is dying.” The photo
depicted the victim lying on her hand with her shirt pulled up to her neck. Her shirt was very wet
along with the carpet underneath her, and it appeared to the detective that she aspirated.
Comparing the photo to how the victim was found the next day after the police were called, the

2
detective ascertained that someone washed the victim’s clothes she wore in the photo and
attempted to clean the discolored spot on the carpet where the victim laid at the time the photo was
taken.
Next, the police officer that responded to the Coryell County incident testified concerning
the domestic assault by Appellant against one of his subsequent girlfriends, and her body camera
recording was entered into evidence. The order placing him on community supervision and plea
agreement documents for the Coryell County offense were also admitted into evidence.
Appellant’s community supervision officer in this case also testified and established
Appellant’s failure to comply with the terms of his community supervision. Appellant’s friend and
cousin testified on his behalf in an attempt to mitigate his failure to perform some of his community
supervision obligations.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, found all the
allegations in the State’s motion to be “true” except for the failure to obtain suitable employment
ground, found him guilty of the third-degree felony offense of tampering with or fabricating
physical evidence, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to ten years of
imprisonment with no fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that she reviewed the record and found no reversible points of
error to argue on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 3
We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible
error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

3
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired,
and no pro se brief was filed.

3
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered October 31, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

4
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 31, 2024

NO. 12-24-00097-CR

BRYAN DANIEL FRENCH,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 85th District Court
of Brazos County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 13-03730-CRF-85)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.