Henry James Weatherman 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. 03-02-00585-CR Henry James Weatherman, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 49,307, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Henry James Weatherman was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after he pleaded guilty to possessing between four and two hundred grams of cocaine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.115 (West Supp. 2003). He later pleaded true to the allegations in the State=s motion to adjudicate, after which the court revoked supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to twelve 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). A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant 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. Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson Affirmed Filed: March 20, 2003 Do Not Publish 2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.
