Elizabeth Michelle Drury v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2014.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-14-00531-CR
    ELIZABETH MICHELLE DRURY, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 411th District Court
    Polk County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 22399
    MEMORANDUM                      OPINION
    Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child.
    The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on community
    supervision for a period of ten years and assessed a $2,500 fine. Subsequently, the
    State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. A hearing was conducted and appellant
    pled “true” to the State’s allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be
    true, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced appellant to confinement for sixteen years in
    the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant
    filed a 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 requirement 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 and the record was delivered to appellant.
    Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
    response.    See Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim.
    App.1991). As of this date, 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 Justices Boyce, Jamison and Donovan.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-14-00531-CR

Filed Date: 12/2/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2015