Willie Earl Greer v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 13, 2010
Docket08-10-00012-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Willie Earl Greer v. State (Willie Earl Greer 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
Willie Earl Greer v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ WILLIE EARL GREER, No. 08-10-00012-CR § Appellant, Appeal from § v. Criminal District Court § THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Jefferson County, Texas § Appellee. (TC # 08-03862) §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Earl Greer appeals his conviction for burglary of a building. The trial court placed

Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for term of five years. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke alleging a violation of the terms and conditions of community

supervision. Based on Appellant’s plea of true, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated

Appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state jail nine months. We

affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094,

18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why,

in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).

A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and agree that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

October 13, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

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)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
O'Bryan v. Chandler
388 U.S. 904 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Willie Earl Greer v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-earl-greer-v-state-texapp-2010.