Valdez v. State

474 S.W.2d 227, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1545
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Valdez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1988
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 14, 1971·No. Nos. 44424-44427·Published

Opinion

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

The convictions are for the sale of heroin; the punishment, 25 years in each case on a plea of guilty before the court.

There was stipulated testimony entered into the records and a written judicial confession by the appellant in each case.

Appellant was represented by employed counsel and is represented on these appeals by court-appointed counsel.

Counsel has filed a brief stating that he has examined the records and has consulted with appellant concerning the cases. Counsel finds no grounds of error which may be urged for reversals of these causes.

The records contain a witnessed certificate signed by the appellant acknowl[228]*228edging receipt of a copy of counsel’s brief and a copy of the transcript and the statement of facts prepared for these appeals, all of which were presented to him in open court.

Appellant has filed no pro se brief herein.

A careful examination of the records before us has been made and we find that the appeals are frivolous.

The requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1969), have been fully satisfied.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

Valdez v. State, 474 S.W.2d 227, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1545 (Tex. 1971).

474 S.W.2d 227 (Valdez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)