Court Opinion

ID: 2913668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 17:48:23.12441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:39.595973
License: Public Domain

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Do not publish.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.