Joseph Overstreet v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00191-CR
______________________________
JOSEPH OVERSTREET, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17,254-2002
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph Overstreet has appealed from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest. After application of enhancements for prior felony convictions, the trial court assessed his punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine.

Appointed counsel filed a brief June 10, 2003, stating the appeal was frivolous and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Overstreet a copy of the brief and advised him by letter that counsel believes there are no arguable contentions of error and informed Overstreet of his right to review the record and to file a brief pro se.

Pursuant to a request by counsel, we granted Overstreet until July 14, 2003, to file a response pro se. He has declined to do so. The State has also declined to file a brief.

Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews pretrial, trial, and punishment proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel concluded from her review of the record there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.

We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel there are no arguable sources of error in this case.

 

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Donald R. Ross

Justice

 

Date Submitted: September 8, 2003

Date Decided: October 6, 2003

 

Do Not Publish

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.