Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

478 S.W.2d 101

Bonner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 29, 1972

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1972-03-29

Relies on Anders v. California · Gainous v. State

Decided 1972-03-29

¶1OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

¶2These are appeals from convictions of possession of heroin and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. Both cases were consolidated into one trial, and the appellant, after being duly admonished, entered pleas of guilty before the court and punishment was assessed at ten years in each case.

¶3Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal, who was also appointed trial counsel, has filed an appellate brief reciting that after a careful and conscientious examination and re-examination of the entire record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 137. No *102pro se brief has been filed. A copy of said brief was served on appellant.

¶4An examination of the record reflects that appellant agreed and consented to a written waiver and consent to stipulation of testimony and stipulations which included a written confession to the ( commission of the offenses charged. We find no unassigned error which would require review in the interest of justice under Article 40.09, Sec. 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

¶5We find ourselves in full accord with counsel’s conclusion that these appeals are wholly without merit.

¶6The judgments are affirmed.

¶7Opinion approved by the Court.

/478/sw2d/101 · .json · Public domain