Court Opinion

ID: 2988657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-23 02:33:48.112426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:50.813773
License: Public Domain

Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October
4, 2012.

                                         In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                 NO. 14-12-00316-CR

                   CHRISTOPHER SOTO-JOHNSON, Appellant

                                           V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                       On Appeal from the 178th District Court
                                Harris County, Texas
                           Trial Court Cause No. 1251860

                  MEMORANDUM                        OPINION

      Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
After a pre-sentence investigation and hearing, on February 29, 2012, the trial court
sentenced appellant to confinement for seven 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). As of this date, more than sixty 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                             2