Bates v. State

456 S.W.2d 107, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1544

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 13, 1970
• Docket: 42818
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, enhanced under Art. 62 Vernon’s Ann.P.C. by a prior conviction for felony theft, life.

Sentence was pronounced and notice of appeal was given on March 25, 1968.

Appellant was represented at his trial and on appeal by court appointed counsel and was furnished an appellate record including a transcript of the court reporter’s notes, because of his indigency.

The record on appeal was approved on July 10, 1968, after notice by certified mail had been given on June 24, 1968, and no objections made.

Following numerous extensions of time for filing defendant’s appellate brief, brief was filed in the trial court on November 14, 1969, by appellant’s court appointed counsel on appeal as well as at his trial in which said counsel conceded that a close examination of the record reveals that the evidence is overwhelming as to the appellant’s guilt, and after a conscientious examination of the entire record he was forced to conclude that there is absolutely nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal and, in his opinion, the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.¹

On December 15, 1969, the state’s appellate brief was filed in the trial court submitting that a careful examination of the record establishes that appellant’s counsel is correct in concluding that the appeal is frivolous, there being no legal points arguable on the merits.

A true copy of the state’s appellate brief with copy of the brief filed by appellant’s counsel attached was mailed by certified mail to appellant as well as to his counsel on December 15, 1969.

The appellate record and brief were filed in this court on January 16, 1970.

The trial court appears to have agreed, as do we, that the appeal is frivolous.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 . Counsel for appellant concluded his brief with the prayer that the trial court accept his brief “as being in compliance with and pursuant to the decision in Anders v. California, 386 Ü.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.”