eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-11

Jason Hasani Robinson v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued November 17, 2005 

                                



     


       





    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The  

    First District of Texas

    ____________


    NO. 01-04-01254-CR

             01-04-01255-CR

    ____________


    JASON HASANI ROBINSON, Appellant  


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 212th Judicial District Court

    Galveston County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 02CR2100 and 02CR2029



     

    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

                   The State charged appellant by indictment with the offenses of possession of a controlled substance, namely: codeine, with the intent to deliver, a second degree felony, and possession of a controlled substance, namely: cocaine, a first degree felony.

                    Appellant pleaded guilty to these offenses on July 17, 2003. Pursuant to his plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court assessed punishment at six years confinement, probated for a period of six years.

                   The court placed appellant on community supervision in each case with the condition that he commit no subsequent criminal offense. On June 23, 2004, the State moved to revoke community supervision in each case. It alleged appellant violated his community service probation by committing the further offense of possession of cocaine. The appellant pleaded not true to the allegation.

                   Following a hearing on October 26, 2004, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision in each case and assessed punishment at five years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. On October 27, 2005, appellant filed pro se notices of appeal in each case.

                   Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw as counsel and filed a brief concluding that the appeals are without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).

                   Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court in cause number 02CR2100 and cause number 02CR2099.

                   We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

                   All pending motions are denied as moot.

    PER CURIAM

    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

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