Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph David Grant, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted Joseph David Grant of failure to comply with the registration requirements of the sex offender registration statute. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.102. The trial court assessed punishment at nine years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
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 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 366 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988).
Appellant was served 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; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel's brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.2d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 03–12–00539–CR
Decided: June 28, 2013
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)