Torrence Samules v. State
This text of Torrence Samules v. State (Torrence Samules 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.
Opinion
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-05-00944-CR
NO. 14-05-00945-CR
TORRENCE SAMUELS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1003740 & 1004554
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of the offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child and compelling prostitution. On September 2, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant in trial court cause number 1003740 to confinement for 99 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Also on September 2, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant in trial court cause number 1004554 to confinement for 30 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from each sentence.
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 records and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). On May 25, 2006, appellant filed a pro se response.
We have carefully reviewed the records, counsel=s brief, and the issues raised by appellant, and we agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Torrence Samules v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrence-samules-v-state-texapp-2006.