Roberson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Roberson v. State

617 S.W.2d 708, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1095

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 24, 1981

DocketNo. 67501

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 617 S.W.2d 708 (Roberson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberson v. State, 617 S.W.2d 708, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1095 (Tex. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

DALLY, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. The offense is theft over $200; the punishment, imprisonment for two years.

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 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given an opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

The record reflects that appellant entered a plea of “true” to the State’s motion to revoke and judicially confessed to violating his probation.

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.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

DALLY, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. The offense is theft over $200; the punishment, imprisonment for two years.

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 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given an opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

The record reflects that appellant entered a plea of “true” to the State’s motion to revoke and judicially confessed to violating his probation.

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.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 S.W.2d 708, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-state-texcrimapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack