LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis v. State

DecidedMarch 2, 2011

Docket03-10-00219-CR

StatusPublished

This text of LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis v. State (LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis 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

LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00219-CR

LeeAndrea Mathis aka Lee Andrea Mathis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-09-0811-SA, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury convicted LeeAndrea Mathis of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. After finding two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felonies to be true, the jury assessed punishment at seventeen years in prison.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records 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 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant requested and received a 60-day extension of time to file his brief by November 30, 2010. No pro se brief has been filed and no further extension of time was requested.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Henson, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: March 2, 2011

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. 03-10-00219-CR

LeeAndrea Mathis aka Lee Andrea Mathis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-09-0811-SA, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury convicted LeeAndrea Mathis of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. After finding two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felonies to be true, the jury assessed punishment at seventeen years in prison.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records 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 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant requested and received a 60-day extension of time to file his brief by November 30, 2010. No pro se brief has been filed and no further extension of time was requested.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Henson, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: March 2, 2011

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

LeeAndrea Mathis AKA Lee Andrea Mathis v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeandrea-mathis-aka-lee-andrea-mathis-v-state-texapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack