Charles Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00375-CR NO. 03-06-00376-CR NO. 03-06-00377-CR Charles Davis, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 2034215, 9040508 & D-1-DC-05-900009 HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In June 2005, appellant Charles Davis pleaded guilty to an information accusing him of possessing cocaine and to two indictments accusing him of family violence assault. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003), Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2006). The trial court adjudged him guilty of the three offenses and assessed eight-year prison terms, but the court suspended imposition of the sentences and placed appellant on community supervision. In May 2006, the court revoked supervision in each case after appellant admitted some of the violations alleged in the State s motions to revoke. The court imposed three concurrent five-year prison terms. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are 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 records 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 records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the records and counsel s brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. ____________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: December 1, 2006 Do Not Publish 2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.
