Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Jakan Arthur Kendrick v. State

Jakan Arthur Kendrick v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 12, 2009
Docket07-08-00154-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jakan Arthur Kendrick v. State (Jakan Arthur Kendrick 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
Jakan Arthur Kendrick v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

NO. 07-08-0154-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL B


FEBRUARY 12, 2009

______________________________


JAKAN ARTHUR KENDRICK, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________


FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY;


NO. 1072467D; HONORABLE MICHAEL THOMAS, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant Jakan Arthur Kendrick appeals from his conviction by jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and the trial court’s sentence of forty-one years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Agreeing with appointed counsel’s conclusion the record fails to show any arguably meritorious issue that could support the appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

          Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, based on events alleged to have occurred in Tarrant County in May 2007. The indictment also contained a habitual offender notice. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty as alleged in the indictment, appellant plead true to the habitual offender allegation. The trial court heard punishment evidence and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for a term of forty-one years. The trial court certified appellant’s right of appeal and this appeal followed.

          The record reflects that the State presented evidence to show that on May 31, 2007, Eduardo Avendano was robbed of cash at gunpoint while working at a store. The robbery was captured by the store’s video system and the recording was admitted at trial without objection and played before the jury. On that evening, one of two robbers asked Avendano if he could cash a paycheck from a nearby company. Because the robber mentioned the company’s name, the investigating police officer showed the company’s general manager the video recording of the robbery. The manager identified one of the robbers as appellant, a former employee. Avendano later positively identified appellant as the robber who pulled out a handgun during the robbery.

          Following the presentation of the evidence, the jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. Appellant went to the trial court for punishment and, as noted, plead “true” to the habitual offender notice. After receiving appellant’s plea of “true” as well as other evidence, the trial court assessed punishment against appellant at forty-one years of confinement. Appellant timely appealed.

        Thereafter, appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant to Anders in which she certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her professional opinion, under the controlling authorities and facts of the case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds on which a non-frivolous appeal can arguably be predicated. The brief discusses in detail the procedural history of this case and the events at trial. Counsel thoroughly discusses the applicable law and sets forth the reasons she concludes there are no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Counsel has certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been served on appellant, and that counsel has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter, this Court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has not filed a response.

          In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this Court determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

 

          Appellate counsel’s brief discusses grounds on which a meritorious argument might lie on appeal, and considers the application of each ground to this case. Counsel first addresses potential issues concerning jurisdiction and jury selection. We agree that the record does not support a contention with regard to either of these issues. Secondly, counsel considers the legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence to support appellant’s conviction. After a complete review of the record, however, we agree with appellate counsel that evidentiary insufficiency grounds do not arguably support an appeal. Counsel next discusses the jury charges at both guilt-innocence and punishment and concludes there is no arguable issue for appeal on this point. We agree with counsel’s conclusion.

          Counsel then discusses issues pertaining to appellant’s punishment and concludes there is no arguable such issue on appeal. We agree. The trial court assessed punishment for appellant at forty-one years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, a term within the permissible range. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(b) (Vernon 2003). It is the general rule that as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814; Rodriguez v. State, 917 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1996, pet. ref’d) (Texas courts have traditionally held that as long as the sentence is within the range of punishment established by the Legislature in a valid statute, it does not violate state or federal prohibitions).

          

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)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Investments, Inc.
148 S.W.3d 143 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Stephen F. Austin State University v. Flynn
228 S.W.3d 653 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
MacHala v. Weems
56 S.W.3d 748 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Smith v. McCarthy
195 S.W.3d 301 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Hernandez v. State
726 S.W.2d 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
City of Amarillo v. Glick
991 S.W.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Holden v. Weidenfeller
929 S.W.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Storms v. Tuck
579 S.W.2d 447 (Texas Supreme Court, 1979)
General Mills Restaurants, Inc. v. Texas Wings, Inc.
12 S.W.3d 827 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Cleaver v. Cundiff
203 S.W.3d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Sentell v. Williamson County
801 S.W.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Roberts v. Allison
836 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Duff v. Matthews
311 S.W.2d 637 (Texas Supreme Court, 1958)
Rodriguez v. State
917 S.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Othen v. Rosier
226 S.W.2d 622 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc.
364 S.W.2d 196 (Texas Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jakan Arthur Kendrick v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jakan-arthur-kendrick-v-state-texapp-2009.