DocketNumber： 14-10-00892-CR
Filed Date： 5/17/2011
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/23/2015
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2011.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-10-00892-CR
____________
FRED CARROLL HOUSTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 58,844
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a building. On July 27, 2009, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for two years, probated for four years, and assessed a $600 fine. On March 16, 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation. Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations in the motion. After a pre-sentence investigation report, on August 5, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. [1] Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in this appeal 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, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days has 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 Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Appellant was convicted of three new burglary offenses. His concurrent sentences in cause numbers 61,607, 61,608, and 61,609 are to be served after completion of the sentence in this case. The appeals from these new convictions remain pending before this court under our numbers 14-10-00893-CR, 14-10-00894-CR, and 14-10-00895-CR.