Narrative Opinion Summary
Lawrence James, Jr. appeals against the State of Texas in case number 12-14114, following a trial presided over by Judge Larry Gist in the 252nd District Court. The State, represented by Jefferson County's Criminal District Attorney Bob Wortham and Assistant District Attorney Ann Manes, responds to the appellant's pro se brief. The State's response, referencing the legal standards from *Anders v. California* and *Bledsoe v. State*, concludes that the appellant's arguments lack merit after reviewing both the brief and the records. The State expresses readiness to address any potential arguable grounds for appeal that the Court may identify. The State prays for affirmation of the original judgment and sentence unless the appellant can demonstrate a justified entitlement to relief. The brief is compliant with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, containing 106 words, and a certificate of service confirms that a copy was mailed to the appellant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State's brief adheres to procedural requirements, including word count and service of documents.
Reasoning: The brief is compliant with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, containing 106 words, and a certificate of service confirms that a copy was mailed to the appellant.
Review of Pro Se Appeals under Anders v. Californiasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State reviews the appellant's pro se arguments and determines they lack merit, in compliance with Anders standards.
Reasoning: The State's response, referencing the legal standards from *Anders v. California* and *Bledsoe v. State*, concludes that the appellant's arguments lack merit after reviewing both the brief and the records.
State's Burden in Arguable Grounds for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State holds readiness to address any arguable grounds the Court may find, affirming their position unless a justified relief is demonstrated by the appellant.
Reasoning: The State expresses readiness to address any potential arguable grounds for appeal that the Court may identify.