Jiles III, Henry v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jiles III, Henry v. State

DecidedJanuary 23, 2003

Docket14-02-00652-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Jiles III, Henry v. State (Jiles III, Henry 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

Jiles III, Henry v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed January 23, 2003

Affirmed and Opinion filed January 23, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00651-CR

NO. 14-02-00652-CR

HENRY JILES, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 899,191 & 901,732

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

Appellant entered guilty pleas to two aggravated robbery offenses, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. After a presentence investigation report, on May 31, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by 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).

Copies of counsel=s briefs were 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 records and counsel=s briefs and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the briefs would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed January 23, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Hudson and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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