Lord Uchechekwu Okuche v. State
Opinion
Appellant Lord Uchechekwu Okuche pleaded guilty to robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2003). The district court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision. Two months later, the State moved to adjudicate. After appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations of supervision, the court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at twelve years' imprisonment.
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, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (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 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. No pro se brief has been filed.
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.
___________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: March 17, 2011
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lord Uchechekwu Okuche v. State (Lord Uchechekwu Okuche v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.