Hernandez, Raul v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 24, 2006
Docket14-06-00199-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Hernandez, Raul v. State (Hernandez, Raul 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
Hernandez, Raul v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00199-CR

RAUL HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 994,580

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 aggravated robbery.  On February 24, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely, written 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 requirement 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. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).  A copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant more than thirty days ago, and appellant was notified that any pro se response was due on or before July 31, 2006.  As of this date, appellant has not filed a no pro se response or a request for extension of time.

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 August 24, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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

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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hernandez, Raul v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-raul-v-state-texapp-2006.