Ray Joiner, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00081-CR Ray Joiner, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 14,794, THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Ray Joiner, Jr., was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 46.04(a)(1), 22.02(a)(2). The jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for eight years and eighteen years, respectively. In addition, the jury assessed a $5,000 fine for the aggravated assault charge. See id. §§ 12.33, 12.34. The trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. 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 has represented to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a form motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant timely requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order, the clerk of the trial court provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Appellant then requested an extension of time to file his pro se response, which this Court granted. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested any additional extension of time to file a response. 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 judgments of conviction are affirmed. 2 __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: December 3, 2014 Do Not Publish 3
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.
