Court Opinion

ID: 2954258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 23:38:17.874997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:58.802937
License: Public Domain

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