Jessie Lee Burks v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 260th District Court of Orange County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-07-212 CR
____________________
JESSIE LEE BURKS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 260th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D-070066-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jessie Lee Burks entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to the first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03(a)(3)(A), (b) (Vernon 2003). The trial court convicted Burks, assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, and cumulated the sentence with a sentence imposed in another case on an earlier date.

 

On appeal, Burks's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 11, 2007, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

 

Submitted on February 5, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

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.