Tenicha Benicha Gilford v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 1, 2007
Docket14-06-00046-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Tenicha Benicha Gilford v. State (Tenicha Benicha Gilford 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
Tenicha Benicha Gilford v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 1, 2007

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 1, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00046-CR

TENICHA BENICHA GILFORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1020619

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury convicted  appellant of aggravated robbery.  On January 11, 2006, appellant was sentenced to confinement for fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely, written notice of appeal.


Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Appellant requested and was provided a copy of the record.  As of this date, more than forty-five days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 1, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tenicha Benicha Gilford v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenicha-benicha-gilford-v-state-texapp-2007.