Jackson v. State
Cases that cite this one
1716 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- William Franklin Green v. State (Tex. App. 2010)
- Raul Ramirez Cardenas v. State (Tex. App. 2010)
- Mary Ayala v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Tex. App. 2010)
- Mary Ayala v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Tex. App. 2010)
- Mary Ayala v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Tex. App. 2010)
- James Tucker Jones v. State (Tex. App. 2010)
- Sebastian Rangel v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Sebastian Rangel v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Robert Scott Paradise v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Harvey Granado v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Ricky Roblero v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Terry Strange v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- George Rieck v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Andy Chavez v. State (Tex. App. 2001)
- Miguel Angel Solis v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- James Lee Knopick v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- Miguel Nicolas Lopez v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- John Joseph Natal v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- Rene Garza v. State (Tex. App. 1998)
- Jesus Elizondo Garza v. State (Tex. App. 1998)
- John Charles Roberts v. State (Tex. App. 1998)
- Michael Gamblin v. State (Tex. App. 1997)
- Dwayne Richard Mooney v. State (Tex. App. 1997)
- Larry Garrett v. State (Tex. App. 1996)
- Matthew Mark Picciolo v. State (Tex. App. 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
The conviction is for the sale of heroin; the punishment assessed, twelve years imprisonment.
The indigent appellant, who was represented in the trial court and on this appeal by appointed counsel, was found guilty by the trial court upon his plea of guilty.
The appellant’s counsel has filed a brief concluding that: “The record reflects no reversible error and there are no points of error upon which an appeal can be predicated.”
The record reflects that the appellant and his counsel appeared before the trial court, at which time the appellant was presented with a copy of the appellate brief and he was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief in his own behalf and of his right to the use of a copy of the trial record. The appellant has not filed a brief in his own behalf.
We find a compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969).
The record before us has been examined and we find that the appeal is frivolous.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved 'by the Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.