Israel Lee Grotzinger v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 10, 2011
Docket03-10-00617-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Israel Lee Grotzinger v. State (Israel Lee Grotzinger 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
Israel Lee Grotzinger v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-10-00617-CR

Israel Lee Grotzinger, Appellant



v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-2009-273, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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


A jury convicted Israel Lee Grotzinger of online solicitation of a child and indecency with a child by contact. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed as punishment concurrent terms of ten years in prison for the online solicitation offense, probated for ten years, and fourteen years in prison for the indecency offense.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed and no extension of time to file a pro se brief has been requested.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: August 10, 2011

Do Not Publish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)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
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)
Israel Lee Grotzinger v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/israel-lee-grotzinger-v-state-texapp-2011.