LaJarvis Terrell Nelson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00090-CR LaJarvis Terrell Nelson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 49127, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant LaJarvis Terrell Nelson was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2004-05). The State later moved to adjudicate. Following a hearing at which appellant admitted the allegations in the motion, the court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to four years in prison. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: August 10, 2005 Do Not Publish 2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.