Joseph David Grant v. The State of TexasAppeal from 27th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion by chief justice jones)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00539-CR Joseph David Grant, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 69395, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Joseph David Grant of failure to comply with the registration requirements of the sex offender registration statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.102. The trial court assessed punishment at nine years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 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, 366 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 was served a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to 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 reviewed the record, including appellate counsel s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.2d 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. _____________________________________________ J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field Affirmed Filed: June 28, 2013 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.