Jason Charles James v. State
Opinion
Appellant Jason Charles James pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (West Supp. 2010). He also admitted the two previous felony convictions alleged for enhancement. The district court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the 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 record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also 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. A pro se brief has been filed.
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 the appeal is frivolous. The issues raised in appellant's pro se response to counsel's Anders brief have no arguable merit. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
___________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: March 17, 2011
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jason Charles James v. State (Jason Charles James v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.