Kenny Earl Calliham v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kenny Earl Calliham v. State

DecidedJune 1, 2006

Docket14-05-01080-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Kenny Earl Calliham v. State (Kenny Earl Calliham 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

Kenny Earl Calliham v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-01080-CR

KENNY EARL CALLIHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 950,522

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

Appellant was charged with capital murder. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to the lesser offense of aggravated robbery and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt. Appellant was placed under community supervision for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court found the allegations in the motion to be true and found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $1,500. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes 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 (1967), 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).

A copy of counsel=s brief was 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 record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

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

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-01080-CR

KENNY EARL CALLIHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 950,522

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

Appellant was charged with capital murder. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to the lesser offense of aggravated robbery and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt. Appellant was placed under community supervision for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court found the allegations in the motion to be true and found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $1,500. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes 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 (1967), 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).

A copy of counsel=s brief was 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 record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kenny Earl Calliham v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenny-earl-calliham-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack