Charles Armstrong v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00252-CR _________________ CHARLES ARMSTRONG, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 241097 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Charles Armstrong was charged by information with terroristic threat. He entered a plea of not guilty. A jury found appellant guilty of terroristic threat. The trial court sentenced Armstrong to ninety days in jail, but probated his sentence for one year and assessed a fine of $500. Armstrong filed a notice of appeal. Armstrong s appellate 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 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 2, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have 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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 5, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2
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.
