Jason Charles James v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-10-00623-CR
    Jason Charles James, Appellant
    v.
    The State of Texas, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 7099, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Jason Charles James pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence.
    See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (West Supp. 2010). He also admitted the two previous felony
    convictions alleged for enhancement.      The district court adjudged him guilty and assessed
    punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment.
    Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
    brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (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). Appellant 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
    . A pro se brief has been filed.
    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State,
    
    300 S.W.3d 763
    , 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. The issues raised in appellant’s
    pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief have no arguable merit. See 
    Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767
    ;
    
    Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827
    . Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
    ___________________________________________
    J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin
    Affirmed
    Filed: March 17, 2011
    Do Not Publish
    2