Virgle Wayne Granberry v. State
This text of Virgle Wayne Granberry v. State (Virgle Wayne Granberry 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
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00146-CR
VIRGLE WAYNE GRANBERRY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23820
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Virgle Wayne Granberry has filed a pro se notice of appeal from his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person. On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court’s certification of right of appeal stated that this was a plea agreement case and that Granberry has no right of appeal.
Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
Because the trial court’s certification affirmatively shows Granberry has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: August 2, 2011
Date Decided: August 3, 2011
Do Not Publish
aph; line-height:200%'> We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.[1]
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: April 29, 2010
Date Decided: April 30, 2010
[1]Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of Berry in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Berry wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Berry must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Berry must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Virgle Wayne Granberry v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virgle-wayne-granberry-v-state-texapp-2011.