James Enoch Banks v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 10, 2003
• Docket: 04-02-00654-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-02-00654-CR, 04-02-00655-CR, 04-02-00656-CR, 04-02-00657-CR,

04-02-00658-CR, 04-02-00659-CR, 04-02-00660-CR

James Enoch BANKS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2001-CR-5497, 2001-CR-5498, 2001-CR-5499, 2001-CR-5500,

2001-CR-5501, 2001-CR-5502, 2001-CR-5503

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

Per Curiam

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2003

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Appellant James Enoch Banks was indicted for seven felony offenses of aggravated robbery. He pled guilty to each offense and was sentenced to twenty-eight years' imprisonment. Banks' appellate attorney filed a brief in which counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit, as well as a motion to withdraw.

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Specifically, counsel states Banks was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief if he wished. Banks has done so, filing a pro se appellate brief with this Court.

In his pro se brief, Banks contends that he is entitled to either a new trial or a reversal of his convictions because: (1) he did not enter his guilty plea freely and willingly; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the issues raised in Banks' pro se brief involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm his conviction in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 for the following reasons:

1. In his brief, Banks claims he was physically coerced into making his confession by his attorney and the district attorney, that he was under the influence of drugs and in a schizophrenic state at the time he made the confession, and that he does not remember the police interview or being read his Miranda rights. Although Banks points to a portion of his sentencing hearing wherein he claims not to remember the details of his crimes, his testimony indicates that he remembers writing the statement. He also admits the statement is in his handwriting. In addition, Banks fails to introduce evidence that he was coerced into confessing or that his constitutional rights were violated. We overrule his first issue.

2. Banks claims that the physical identifications of him given by several witnesses vary to such a degree that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We overrule Banks' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he stipulated to the admission of certain evidence, including his written confession to aggravated robbery. Banks' admission is legally and factually sufficient to support his conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

3. We overrule Banks' ineffective assistance of counsel challenge because he fails to present evidence demonstrating defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Based on the foregoing, we agree with Banks' attorney that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore we grant the motion

to withdraw filed by Banks' counsel. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)

Do Not Publish