Terry Throckmorton v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 17, 2001
Docket13-00-00319-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Terry Throckmorton v. State (Terry Throckmorton 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
Terry Throckmorton v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-319-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

TERRY THROCKMORTON, Appellant,

v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Yañez



Appellant pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to a charge of theft of property valued $1,500 or more, but less than $20,000. (1) The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967). The brief states that appellant was served with a copy of the brief; however, it was unclear if appellant had been informed of her right to respond. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We abated this appeal to permit counsel to inform appellant of her right to file a response to counsel's Anders brief with this Court. We have received and filed a copy of the letter sent to appellant by counsel notifying her of this right.

Appellant has had thirty days to file a response to this Court, but has not filed a brief or a response with this Court. As required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, (1988), we have conducted a full examination of all the proceedings in appellant's case and we conclude that this appeal is wholly frivolous.

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant the attorney's motion to withdraw. We order appellant's attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

17th day of May, 2001.

1. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (Vernon 2001).

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Ex Parte Wilson
956 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Terry Throckmorton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-throckmorton-v-state-texapp-2001.