Jonathan Keith Miller v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jonathan Keith Miller v. State

DecidedAugust 25, 2005

Docket08-04-00209-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Jonathan Keith Miller v. State (Jonathan Keith Miller 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

Jonathan Keith Miller v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JONATHAN KEITH MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

No. 08-04-00209-CR

Appeal from the

228th District Court

of Harris County, Texas

(TC# 946061)

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a jury conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury assessed punishment at three years’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,500. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the matter discussed in counsel’s brief and the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

August 25, 2005

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JONATHAN KEITH MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

No. 08-04-00209-CR

Appeal from the

228th District Court

of Harris County, Texas

(TC# 946061)

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a jury conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury assessed punishment at three years’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,500. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the matter discussed in counsel’s brief and the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

August 25, 2005

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jonathan Keith Miller v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-keith-miller-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack