Daniel Micah Vermilyea v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Memorandum Opinion issued March 20, 2014 Withdrawn; Affirmed and
    Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 3, 2014.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-13-00218-CR
    DANIEL MICAH VERMILYEA, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 176th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 1335846
    SUBSTITUTE                 MEMORANDUM                      OPINION
    We withdraw the opinion issued March 20, 2014 and issue this opinion in its
    place. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to indecency with a child. On March
    8, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine 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 the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
    v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the
    record was provided to him. On March 24, 2014, appellant filed a pro se response
    to counsel’s brief.
    We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s
    response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we
    find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing
    to the jurisprudence of the state. 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, Christopher, and Brown.
    Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-13-00218-CR

Filed Date: 4/3/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2015