Henderson, Roderick Nikita v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-01-01159-CR

Case Date: 12/05/2002

Plaintiff: Henderson, Roderick Nikita

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Henderson, Roderick Nikita v. The State of Texas-Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County
Opinion issued December 5, 2002

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________

NO. 01-01-01159-CR ____________

RODERICK NIKITA HENDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 855649

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Roderick Nikita Henderson, was convicted by a jury of sexual assault. The jury also found the allegations contained in two enhancement paragraphs to be true, and assessed punishment at 50 years' confinement. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The 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 and demonstrating why there are no

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/78493.html[8/20/2013 8:15:31 PM]

arguable grounds of error to be advanced. 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 sent a copy of the brief and the appellate record to appellant, and advised him of his right to 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 wholly frivolous. We affirm the judgment. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Radack. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47. 1. Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/78493.html[8/20/2013 8:15:31 PM]

Download 78493.pdf