Javier Montes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00406-CR Javier Montes, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 00-1015-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Javier Montes pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture less than two hundred grams of methamphetamine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.112(a), (d) (West Supp. 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 15.01 (West 2003). The district court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision. Later, on the State=s motion, the court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years= imprisonment. 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. __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: March 20, 2003 Do Not Publish 2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.
