Thomas, Elie Danill v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 22, 2002
Docket01-01-01044-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Thomas, Elie Danill v. State (Thomas, Elie Danill 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
Thomas, Elie Danill v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

_______________



NO. 01-01-01044-CR



ELIE DANILL THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 861,114

O P I N I O N



Appellant, Elie Danill Thomas, pled guilty, without an agreed punishment recommendation, to aggravated robbery. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, and appellant pled true to only some of the State's allegations. After a hearing, the trial court found all the State's allegations to be true, found appellant guilty, and assessed appellant's punishment at 35 years in prison.

Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from further obligation and, in support of this motion, has submitted a brief stating his opinion that this appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the minimum requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Counsel certifies that the brief was delivered to appellant and that appellant was advised he had a right to review the record and file a pro se response. Thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.

We have read and reviewed the entire record in this matter, and we concur with appellate counsel's assessment that there are no arguable grounds of error that could be presented on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Taft, and Jennings.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

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)
Stephens v. State
35 S.W.3d 770 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thomas, Elie Danill v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-elie-danill-v-state-texapp-2002.