Gardner, Louis v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gardner, Louis v. State

DecidedFebruary 10, 2005

Docket14-04-00236-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Gardner, Louis v. State (Gardner, Louis 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

Gardner, Louis v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00236-CR

LOUIS GARDNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01CR0390

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court placed appellant on five years of community supervision. The State subsequently moved to revoke the community supervision. Appellant pled true to the stipulations of evidence. On February 13, 2004, the trial court signed a judgment, sentencing appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.^{^[1]} Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

^{^[1]} The judgment indicates that sentence was imposed on December 16, 2003.

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

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00236-CR

LOUIS GARDNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01CR0390

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court placed appellant on five years of community supervision. The State subsequently moved to revoke the community supervision. Appellant pled true to the stipulations of evidence. On February 13, 2004, the trial court signed a judgment, sentencing appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.^{^[1]} Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

^{^[1]} The judgment indicates that sentence was imposed on December 16, 2003.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gardner, Louis v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-louis-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack