Timothy Harmon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Opinion filed November 6, 2003

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00025-CR

NO.  14-03-00026-CR

____________

TIMOTHY HARMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 868,480 & 868,995

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered guilty pleas to two burglary of a habitation offenses. On March 30, 2001, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for five years on each case. On November 12, 2002, the State filed motions to adjudicate appellant=s guilt in each case. Appellant then entered into a plea bargain agreement with the State, and the trial court adjudicated appellant=s guilt and sentenced him in accordance with his agreement to confinement for nine years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal for both cases.


Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

A written request to withdraw the notices of appeal, personally signed by appellant, has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. On July 24, 2003, we granted appellant=s request, but did not deliver an opinion.

Accordingly, we order the appeals dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the Court to issue the mandates of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.