Black, Anthony Ray v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 29, 2002
Docket01-01-01170-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Black, Anthony Ray v. State (Black, Anthony Ray v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Black, Anthony Ray v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Opinion issued August 29, 2002





In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas



NO. 01-01-01170-CR



ANTHONY RAY BLACK, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 874589



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Anthony Ray Black, pleaded guilty, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, to aggravated robbery. The trial court found appellant guilty, made an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense, and assessed appellant's punishment at 25 years in prison.

Appointed counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the minimum requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Counsel has certified that a copy of the brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se response. This Court granted appellant a 45-day extension of time to file a pro se response, but more than 45 days have passed and he has not done so.

We have reviewed the entire record, and we hold there are no arguable grounds for appeal. We affirm the judgment.

We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We note that counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Taft, and Jennings.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Ex Parte Wilson
956 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Black, Anthony Ray v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-anthony-ray-v-state-texapp-2002.