HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-88-01458-CR

Case Date: 12/06/1989

Plaintiff: HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Preview:HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 6, 1989 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-88-01458-CR ............................ HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ................................................................. On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F88-86768-VH ................................................................. OPINION PER CURIAM Before Justices Whitham, Rowe, and Whittington Hal Keith Weathers was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery. Punishment, enhanced by one prior conviction, was assessed by the jury at thirty years' confinement. Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. Appellant was given an extension until August 14, 1989, in which to file his pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Appellant was notified by letter dated October 30, 1989, that it would be necessary for him to file a motion for an additional extension and that, if he failed to do so, the appeal would be decided without a pro se brief. No motion to extend the time further has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90 881458F.U05 File Date[12-06-89]
file:///C|/TX/Folder%2002/05-88-01458-cr-6.html[7/20/2013 1:56:08 AM]

File Name[881458F]

file:///C|/TX/Folder%2002/05-88-01458-cr-6.html[7/20/2013 1:56:08 AM]

Download 05-88-01458-cr-6.pdf