Jessie William Caldwell v. State
This text of Jessie William Caldwell v. State (Jessie William Caldwell 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.
Opinion
Jessie William Caldwell appeals from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to the state jail felony offense of theft over $1,500.00, less than $20,000.00. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court sentenced Caldwell to twelve months' confinement and ordered restitution of $2,639.88. Caldwell was represented by different, appointed, counsel at trial and on appeal. Caldwell's attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, after a review of the record and the related law.
Counsel states that he has studied the record and finds no error preserved for appeal that could be successfully argued. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and advances one arguable ground for review. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Caldwell on November 24, 2008, informing Caldwell of his right to examine the entire appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel simultaneously filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. No pro se response, nor extension of time in which to file such a response, has been filed.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. (1)
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: January 28, 2009
Date Decided: January 30, 2009
Do Not Publish
1. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Caldwell in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Caldwell wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Caldwell must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Caldwell must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.
ack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: April 10, 2006
Date Decided: June 6, 2006
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jessie William Caldwell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessie-william-caldwell-v-state-texapp-2009.