Willie Woodrow Ball v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 14, 2011
Docket03-11-00295-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Willie Woodrow Ball v. State (Willie Woodrow Ball 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 Woodrow Ball v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-11-00295-CR

Willie Woodrow Ball, Appellant



v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-10-301724, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

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



Appellant, Willie Woodrow Ball, was charged with one count of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2011). Ball waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court found Ball guilty, and after he pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph, sentenced Ball to five years' imprisonment with a deadly-weapon finding. See id. §§ 12.42(b), .32 (West 2011).

Ball's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); 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). Ball received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



____________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: December 14, 2011

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Willie Woodrow Ball v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-woodrow-ball-v-state-texapp-2011.