Lawrence Joiner v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 3, 2010
Docket03-09-00694-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Lawrence Joiner v. State (Lawrence Joiner 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
Lawrence Joiner v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00693-CR NO. 03-09-00694-CR

Lawrence Joiner, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 13678 & 13679, HONORABLE TERRY L. FLENNIKEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lawrence Joiner pleaded guilty to the offenses of aggravated robbery and tampering

with evidence. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003), § 37.09 (West Supp. 2009). At his

request, a jury trial was held on punishment for both convictions. Joiner appeals the jury’s sentences

of thirty years and ten years running concurrently for the respective offenses of aggravated robbery

and evidence tampering.

Joiner’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in each case 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). Joiner received a copy of counsel’s brief and was 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. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted.

The judgments are affirmed.

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: August 3, 2010

Do Not Publish

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
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)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lawrence Joiner v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-joiner-v-state-texapp-2010.