Jimmie Joe Lurati v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00237-CR Jimmy Joe Lurati, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 50517, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In March 2000, appellant Jimmy Joe Lurati pleaded guilty to stalking. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 42.072 (West 2003). Appellant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, but imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision for ten years as called for in a plea bargain. In February 2005, appellant s supervision was revoked and sentence was imposed after he pleaded true to the allegations in the State s motion to revoke. 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 order revoking community supervision is affirmed. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: November 3, 2005 Do Not Publish 2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.