Victor, Dominique J. v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Victor, Dominique J. v. State

DecidedJanuary 5, 2006

Docket14-05-00416-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Victor, Dominique J. v. State (Victor, Dominique J. 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

Victor, Dominique J. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00416-CR

DOMINIQUE J. VICTOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1008908

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. On April 12, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 15 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements 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 record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A copy of the record was forwarded to appellant and received by him on September 1, 2005. The pro se response was due to be filed on October 10, 2005. As of this date, 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 January 5, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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