John Henry Carter, Jr. v. The State of TexasAppeal from 391st District Court of Tom Green County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00806-CR John Henry Carter, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 391ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-11-0386-SA, HONORABLE MARTIN (BROCK) JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant John Henry Carter, Jr. pled guilty to burglary of a habitation, evading arrest in a motor vehicle with a prior conviction, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, but pled not guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court found him guilty of all offenses, and fixed an aggregate punishment at 40 years in prison and 730 days in a state jail facility. Appellant appeals from the conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed. Having reviewed the evidence presented to the court and the procedures that were observed, nothing in the record might arguably support the appeal. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1 __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: August 13, 2013 Do Not Publish 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 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.
