DocketNumber： 14-07-00441-CR
Filed Date： 2/5/2009
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/15/2015
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-00441-CR
NO. 14-07-00442-CR
____________
DELVIN E. BRADFORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1085154, 1085155
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offenses of attempted capital murder (Trial Court Cause No. 1085154, Appeal No. 14-07-00441-CR) and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (Trial Court Cause No. 1085155, Appeal No. 14-07-00442-CR). On May 23, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant in both causes to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in both causes.
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record in each cause 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 records and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant=s request, the record in each cause was provided to him. On January 23, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record in each cause and counsel=s brief, as well as appellant=s pro se response. We agree with counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, in each cause 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, in each cause the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).