Alexandro Camacho v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case
NO. 12-02-00355-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ALEXANDRO CAMACHO,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Alexandro Camacho pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court assessed his punishment at ten years in prison, a $5,000.00 fine, restitution and court costs. Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant's counsel, in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to present any arguable points of error. (1) We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

 

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

 

Opinion delivered August 6, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. , Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. Counsel for Appellant provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

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.