Brown, Arkeith Lamont v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Brown, Arkeith Lamont v. State

DecidedAugust 29, 2002

Docket01-01-01217-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Brown, Arkeith Lamont v. State (Brown, Arkeith Lamont 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

Brown, Arkeith Lamont v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion issued August 29, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-01-01217-CR

ARKEITH LAMONT BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 40796

O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant, Arkeith Lamont Brown, guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at three years in prison.

Counsel has filed a brief stating his opinion that 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 the brief was delivered to appellant; that appellant was provided copies of, and advised he had a right to request, the record; and that appellant was advised that he had a right to file a pro se response. This Court then sent a copy of the record to appellant. After he received that record, appellant filed a pro se request for an extension of time to file a response, indicating he needed more time to research an issue. On May 24, 2002, this Court granted appellant's pro se request for an extension of time, ordering that any pro se response would be due by June 24, 2002. However, thirty days have passed from that deadline, and appellant has not filed a pro se response or another motion for extension of time to file same.

We have read and reviewed the entire record in this matter, and we concur with appellate counsel's assessment that there are no arguable grounds of error that could be presented on appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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Do not publish.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

Opinion issued August 29, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-01-01217-CR

ARKEITH LAMONT BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 40796

O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant, Arkeith Lamont Brown, guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at three years in prison.

Counsel has filed a brief stating his opinion that 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 the brief was delivered to appellant; that appellant was provided copies of, and advised he had a right to request, the record; and that appellant was advised that he had a right to file a pro se response. This Court then sent a copy of the record to appellant. After he received that record, appellant filed a pro se request for an extension of time to file a response, indicating he needed more time to research an issue. On May 24, 2002, this Court granted appellant's pro se request for an extension of time, ordering that any pro se response would be due by June 24, 2002. However, thirty days have passed from that deadline, and appellant has not filed a pro se response or another motion for extension of time to file same.

We have read and reviewed the entire record in this matter, and we concur with appellate counsel's assessment that there are no arguable grounds of error that could be presented on appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Taft, and Jennings.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown, Arkeith Lamont v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-arkeith-lamont-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack