James Kirk v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 5, 2006
Docket14-05-00712-CR
StatusPublished

This text of James Kirk v. State (James Kirk 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
James Kirk v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00711-CR

NO. 14-05-00712-CR

JAMES KIRK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1010262, and 943,857

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Cause No. 1010262, No. 14-05-00711-CR on appeal) and injury to a child (Cause No. 943, 857, No. 14-05-00712-CR on appeal).  On June 24, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years and five years, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each cause.


Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes 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 (1967), 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 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 Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Kirk v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-kirk-v-state-texapp-2006.