eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2006-06

Jaime Abascal v. State ( 2006 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed June 29, 2006

     

     

    Opinion filed June 29, 2006

     

     

     

     

     

     

                                                                            In The

                                                                                 

        Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                       __________

     

                                                              No. 11-05-00372-CR

                                                        __________

     

                                           JAIME ABASCAL, Appellant

     

                                                                 V.

     

                                            STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

     

      

     

                                             On Appeal from the 299th District Court

     

                                                               Travis County, Texas

     

                                          Trial Court Cause No. D-1-DC-2005-904068

     

      

     

                                                                       O P I N I O N

    The jury convicted Jaime Abascal of aggravated kidnapping, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed punishment at confinement for seventeen years.  We affirm.

    Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

    Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.

    The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

     

    PER CURIAM

     

    June 29, 2006

    Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

    Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

    McCall, J., and Strange, J.