Jason Charles James v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 17, 2011
Docket03-10-00623-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jason Charles James v. State (Jason Charles James 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
Jason Charles James v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-10-00623-CR
Jason Charles James, Appellant


v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 7099, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jason Charles James v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-charles-james-v-state-texapp-2011.