Clifford Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Clifford Jones v. State

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

Docket13-00-00604-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Clifford Jones v. State (Clifford Jones 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

Clifford Jones v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-604-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

CLIFFORD JONES , Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 12th District Court

of Walker County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

A jury convicted appellant, Clifford Jones, of escape with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault of a public servant with a deadly weapon. The jury found the enhancement allegations true and assessed punishment at forty-two years in prison.

On April 26, 2001, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which she has thoroughly reviewed the reporter's record and clerk's record. Counsel has concluded that no reversible error occurred during the guilt/innocence or punishment phases of the trial. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) because it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.

On May 24, 2001, appellant filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. On June 7, 2001, we granted the motion and extended the time to file the brief until July 26, 2001. To this date appellant has not filed a pro se brief, nor has the State favored us with a brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief an appellate court must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and have found nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Appellant's counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant permission to withdraw. We order appellant's counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of March, 2002.

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

NUMBER 13-00-604-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

CLIFFORD JONES , Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 12th District Court

of Walker County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

A jury convicted appellant, Clifford Jones, of escape with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault of a public servant with a deadly weapon. The jury found the enhancement allegations true and assessed punishment at forty-two years in prison.

On April 26, 2001, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which she has thoroughly reviewed the reporter's record and clerk's record. Counsel has concluded that no reversible error occurred during the guilt/innocence or punishment phases of the trial. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) because it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.

On May 24, 2001, appellant filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. On June 7, 2001, we granted the motion and extended the time to file the brief until July 26, 2001. To this date appellant has not filed a pro se brief, nor has the State favored us with a brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief an appellate court must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and have found nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Appellant's counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant permission to withdraw. We order appellant's counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of March, 2002.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clifford Jones v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-jones-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack