Jacob Lee Roper v. State
12-15-00215-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 3, 2015Background
- Appellant Jacob Lee Roper was indicted in Smith County for two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of burglary of a building in spring 2015.
- Roper entered open pleas of guilty in each case and filed written waivers of jury trial.
- The trial court accepted the pleas after admonishments and a colloquy; Roper also signed written stipulations of evidence (judicial confessions).
- Sentences imposed 11 August: two years for burglary (state jail felony) and 40 years for each aggravated robbery (first-degree felonies).
- Appellant timely filed notice of appeal; appellate counsel (appointed) reviewed the record and filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of trial court | N/A (State prosecuted felonies) | Roper implicitly challenges nothing specific | Trial court had proper original jurisdiction over the indictments; no error |
| Valid waiver of jury trial | Waiver filed in writing and approved by court; Roper knowingly waived | Roper does not show coercion or invalidity | Waiver met statutory requirements (art. 1.13); colloquy supports validity |
| Voluntariness and sufficiency of guilty pleas | Pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered after admonishments | Roper did not contest coercion or misunderstanding | Trial court substantially complied with art. 26.13; pleas upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support plea (stipulation) | Stipulations of evidence/judicial confession admitted, embracing essential elements | Roper offered no objection; no contrary proof | Judicial confessions sufficient to support conviction; evidence legally sufficient |
| Punishment within statutory range | Sentences (2 years; 40 years each) are within statutory ranges | No contemporaneous objection preserved; no claim of gross disproportionality | Sentences are within statutory ranges and not constitutionally cruel or unusual in context |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Roper implicitly alleges none; appellate counsel reviewed record | Counsel contends performance was reasonable; no Strickland showing | Record contains no appellate arguable ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appointed counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (pleas must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance standard)
- Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (stipulation/judicial confession can support guilty plea)
- McKenna v. State, 493 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (judicial confession supports conviction)
- Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (effect of guilty plea on appellate review)
- Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate-rule effect on pleas and appeals)
- Lord v. State, 63 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (substantial compliance with plea admonishments)