Genise Batson Brittenum v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 25, 2000
Docket03-99-00189-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Genise Batson Brittenum v. State (Genise Batson Brittenum 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
Genise Batson Brittenum v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-99-00189-CR
Genise Batson Brittenum, Appellant


v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 98-624-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appellant Genise Batson Brittenum guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a child and assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifty years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West Supp. 2000). Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: May 25, 2000

Do Not Publish

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Genise Batson Brittenum v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genise-batson-brittenum-v-state-texapp-2000.