Jackson Jr., Charles Albert v. State
This text of Jackson Jr., Charles Albert v. State (Jackson Jr., Charles Albert 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.
Opinion
Affirmed and Opinion filed June 6, 2002.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-01-01221-CR
CHARLES ALBERT JACKSON, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 35,170
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 injury to a child. The trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation. On April 3, 2001, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State=s motion and adjudicated appellant guilty. On September 14, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by 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 that 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 Opinion filed June 6, 2002.
Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Edelman.
Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jackson Jr., Charles Albert v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-jr-charles-albert-v-state-texapp-2002.