Miguel Pesina, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 14, 2010
Docket08-09-00220-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Miguel Pesina, Jr. v. State (Miguel Pesina, Jr. 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
Miguel Pesina, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MIGUEL PESINA, JR., § No. 08-09-00220-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 143rd Judicial District Court § THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Reeves County, Texas § Appellee. (TC# 08-03-07303-CRR) §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a judgment revoking Appellant’s community supervision, and

adjudicating him guilty of burglary of a habitation. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 7

years’ imprisonment and imposed a $1,500 fine. Appellant’s court appointed counsel has filed a

brief stating the appeal is wholly frivolous and requesting that this Court allow him to withdraw

from the case. Affirmed.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct.

2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has

been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel’s brief would add

nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

July 14, 2010 DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

-2-

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)
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)
O'Bryan v. Chandler
388 U.S. 904 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miguel Pesina, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-pesina-jr-v-state-texapp-2010.