Carl Dean King v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 196th District Court of Hunt County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-01-00147-CR

Case Date: 10/17/2002

Plaintiff: Texas Employment Commission

Defendant: Ben Hogan Company--Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County

Preview:Harry James Yarbrough v. State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-01-042 CR ____________________ HARRY JAMES YARBROUGH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 82649 OPINION Harry James Yarbrough pleaded guilty as a repeat felony offender to the felony offense of indecency with a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 21.11(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The trial court assessed punishment at 15 years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Yarbrough appealed. Appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes that the record presents no arguable error which would support an appeal, a conclusion with which we concur. On August 30, 2001, Yarbrough was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. As of this date, we have received no response from the appellant. The "Agreed Punishment Recommendation" limited the upper range of punishment to 20 years, and required the State to abandon an habitual felony allegation. These circumstances establish the existence of a plea bargain agreement as to the punishment to be assessed by the trial court. See Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, pet. ref'd). The general notice of appeal does not comply with the form required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record for issues over which appellate jurisdiction might exist, and have found no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 31, 2001 Opinion Delivered January 9, 2002 Do Not Publish Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6356.html[8/20/2013 7:20:42 PM]

Download 6356.pdf