Demetrius R. Jeffery v. State
This text of Demetrius R. Jeffery v. State (Demetrius R. Jeffery 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.
Opinion
Demetrius Ramon Jeffery has appealed from his revocation of community supervision on his plea of true to the allegations contained in the motion to revoke. Appellate counsel filed a brief July 10, 2006, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Jeffery a copy of the brief, as well as copies of the clerk's and reporter's records, and advised Jeffery by letter he believes there are no arguable contentions of error. He also informed Jeffery of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Jeffery was advised by letter from this Court dated July 14, 2006, that his pro se brief was due on or before August 14, 2006. No brief has been filed, and Jeffery has not sought additional time in which to prepare a brief.
Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel concluded from his review of the record there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.
Counsel further states in the brief that the plea was voluntary, that all admonitions were properly given, and that Jeffery knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty.
We have, likewise, reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no arguable points of error in this case.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: September 29, 2006
Date Decided: October 31, 2006
Do Not Publish
damus review, Texas courts should not frustrate those purposes by a too-strict application of our own procedural devices.
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 05-0892, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 759, at *19 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (orig. proceeding).
Here, however, considering the other factors mentioned in McAllen Medical Center (the length the case has been pending, the detailed nature of the expert reports, and the time for discovery), we believe that the outcome in the instant case remains the same. Further, the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss this case is not a clear abuse of discretion for the same reasons as discussed in In re Gladewater Healthcare Center, cause number 06-08-00141-CV. That is, the expert reports filed in this case are also sufficiently detailed such that the trial court was not required to dismiss the cause of action. That said, the petition for writ of mandamus in this cause is, likewise, denied.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: February 24, 2009
Date Decided: February 25, 2009
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Demetrius R. Jeffery v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetrius-r-jeffery-v-state-texapp-2006.