Miguel Angel Solis v. State
Miguel Angel Solis v. State
Opinion
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 record 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). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record 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. Further, we find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.
In cause number 3-99-386-CR, the order revoking supervision is affirmed. In cause number 3-99-387-CR, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed in Both Causes
Filed: October 28, 1999
Do Not Publish
STYLE="font-size: 14pt">
Appellant Miguel Angel Solis pleaded guilty in 1997 to possessing less than one gram of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 1999). The district court adjudged appellant guilty and assessed punishment at incarceration in a state jail for two years and a $500 fine, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on community supervision. The State moved to revoke supervision following appellant's indictment for driving while intoxicated, third offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 49.04(a), .09(b) (West Supp. 1999). At a combined proceeding, appellant pleaded guilty to the new offense and true to the motion to revoke. In the controlled substance case, court revoked supervision and imposed the original sentence. In the DWI case, the court adjudged appellant guilty, assessed punishment at imprisonment for six years and a $350 fine, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision.
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 record 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). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record 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. Further, we find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.
In cause number 3-99-386-CR, the order revoking supervision is affirmed. In cause number 3-99-387-CR, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed in Both Causes
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.