Javier Jaimes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Travis County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00195-CR Javier Jaimes, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. C-1-CR-10-500793, THE HONORABLE NANCY WRIGHT HOHENGARTEN, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION After a bench trial, appellant Javier Jaimes was convicted by the court of assault, a class A misdemeanor, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West 2011). The court assessed his punishment at confinement in the county jail for 30 days. See id. § 12.21 (West 2011). Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Appellant s counsel sent appellant a copy of the brief along with a letter advising appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: September 18, 2012 Do Not Publish 2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.
