Blair Jamal Davis 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. 03-06-00370-CR Blair Jamal Davis, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 58861, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Blair Jamal Davis pleaded guilty and confessed to conspiring with others to commit aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ยงยง 15.01, 29.03 (West 2003). The trial court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to six years in prison and a $2500 fine. 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 insofar as the conviction and sentence are concerned. We also agree with counsel that the judgment of conviction should be modified to delete the order that appellant pay court costs, attorney fees, fines, and restitution as a condition of parole. The record reflects that the court did not impose restitution. The judgment is modified to reflect that the trial court recommends that appellant pay court costs, attorney fees, and the fine as a condition of parole. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed Filed: December 1, 2006 Do Not Publish 2