Russell Christopher Vitatoe v. State ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Motion to Withdraw Granted, Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21,
    2012.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    ____________
    NO. 14-12-00076-CR
    ____________
    RUSSELL CHRISTOPHER VITATOE, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
    Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 10-10255
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant entered a plea of guilty to attempted aggravated sexual assault, enhanced
    by a prior felony conviction. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, on April 11, 2011, the
    trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for
    ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging
    that appellant had violated eight conditions of his community supervision. Appellant
    entered a plea of true to five counts in the motion. On January 9, 2012, the trial court
    adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for thirty years in the
    Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a
    timely notice of appeal.
    Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is
    wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of
    the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High
    v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
    A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his
    right to review the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days have passed
    and no pro se response has been filed.
    We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is
    wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We
    are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response
    when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State,
    
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-12-00076-CR

Filed Date: 6/21/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2015