Jaime Torres v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 339th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued May 29, 2008 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NOS. 01-07-00629-CR 01-07-00630-CR 01-07-00631-CR ____________ JAIME TORRES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 339th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1082339, 1085246, 1085245 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jaime Torres, pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping,1 1 Trial court cause number 1085245 and appellate cause number 01-07-00630-CR. aggravated robbery,2 and credit card abuse.3 After a presentence investigation, the trial court assessed punishment at 35 years confinement on the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery charges and 2 years confinement on the credit card abuse charge. We affirm. Appellant s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref d). Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief. We find no arguable grounds of error and agree that the appeal is without merit. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2 Trial court cause number 1085246 and appellate cause number 01-07-00631-CR. 3 Trial court cause number 1082339 and appellate cause number 01-07-00629-CR. 2 We grant counsel s motion to withdraw.4 See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4 Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3
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.
