eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-08

Jonathan Keith Miller v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:
  • Criminal Case Template

    COURT OF APPEALS

    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    EL PASO, TEXAS


    JONATHAN KEITH MILLER,


                                Appellant,


    v.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS,


                                Appellee.

    §


    §


    §


    §


    §

    No. 08-04-00208-CR


    Appeal from the


    228th District Court


    of Harris County, Texas


    (TC# 946060)

    O P I N I O N


               This is an appeal from a jury conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine in an amount greater than one gram and less than four grams. The jury assessed punishment at fourteen years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. We affirm.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she 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. Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

               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. A discussion of the matter discussed in counsel’s brief and the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

               The judgment is affirmed.

     

                                                                      RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

    August 25, 2005


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


    (Do Not Publish)