Juan Antonio Perez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Juan Antonio Perez v. State

DecidedFebruary 3, 2005

Docket03-04-00286-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Juan Antonio Perez v. State (Juan Antonio Perez 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

Juan Antonio Perez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00286-CR

NO. 03-04-00287-CR

Juan Antonio Perez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. CR-03-793 & CR-03-794, HONORABLE DON MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury convicted appellant Juan Antonio Perez for assaulting a public servant (two counts) and possessing more than fifty pounds of marihuana. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West 2003). The district court assessed punishment for each offense, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for fifteen years and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 was given a copy of counsel's brief and advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: February 3, 2005

Do Not Publish

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00286-CR

NO. 03-04-00287-CR

Juan Antonio Perez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. CR-03-793 & CR-03-794, HONORABLE DON MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury convicted appellant Juan Antonio Perez for assaulting a public servant (two counts) and possessing more than fifty pounds of marihuana. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West 2003). The district court assessed punishment for each offense, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for fifteen years and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 was given a copy of counsel's brief and advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: February 3, 2005

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Juan Antonio Perez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-antonio-perez-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack