Hicks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hicks v. State

476 S.W.2d 671

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1972

Docket44890

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 476 S.W.2d 671 (Hicks v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks v. State, 476 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery with firearms; the punishment, upon a plea of guilty, twenty (20) years.

Appellant’s court appointed attorney filed a brief in this Court in which he alleges that he has diligently and conscientiously studied the record on appeal and has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and entirely without merit.

In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S. W.2d 137, counsel has furnished a copy of his brief to appellant and at appellant’s request submits his contention that the indictment was “defective, misleading, prejudicial and inflammatory” in that the appellant’s name was incorrectly stated on the reverse side of the indictment wherein the clerk is requested to issue subpoenas in the case of the “State of Texas v. Joyce Lee Garcia” instead of appellant. No complaint whatsover is made of any other deficiency in the indictment.

The record reflects that appellant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty during the course of his trial and was duly and properly admonished as to the consequences of such plea. Appellant may not now be heard to complain of an obvious clerical error on the outside of his indictment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery with firearms; the punishment, upon a plea of guilty, twenty (20) years.

Appellant’s court appointed attorney filed a brief in this Court in which he alleges that he has diligently and conscientiously studied the record on appeal and has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and entirely without merit.

In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S. W.2d 137, counsel has furnished a copy of his brief to appellant and at appellant’s request submits his contention that the indictment was “defective, misleading, prejudicial and inflammatory” in that the appellant’s name was incorrectly stated on the reverse side of the indictment wherein the clerk is requested to issue subpoenas in the case of the “State of Texas v. Joyce Lee Garcia” instead of appellant. No complaint whatsover is made of any other deficiency in the indictment.

The record reflects that appellant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty during the course of his trial and was duly and properly admonished as to the consequences of such plea. Appellant may not now be heard to complain of an obvious clerical error on the outside of his indictment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack