Joseph David Grant v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 28, 2013
Docket03-12-00539-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Joseph David Grant v. State (Joseph David Grant 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
Joseph David Grant v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00539-CR

Joseph David Grant, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 69395, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Joseph David Grant of failure to comply with the registration

requirements of the sex offender registration statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.102. The

trial court assessed punishment at nine years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.

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 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 366 U.S. 738, 744

(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988). Appellant was served 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; Garner,

300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.

We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find

no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.2d at 766; Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents

no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Affirmed

Filed: June 28, 2013

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

Related

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joseph David Grant v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-david-grant-v-state-texapp-2013.