Court Opinion

ID: 2928168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-12 01:01:55.335363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:06.425654
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion filed May 16, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed May 16, 2002.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-01-00788-CR
____________
 
HAROLD EARL REED, JR., Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On
Appeal from the 338th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial
Court Cause No. 861,400
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N
Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the
offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.  On May 1, 2001, the trial court sentenced
appellant to confinement for twenty-three years in the Institutional Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she
concludes that 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, 18
L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
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.  As of this date, no pro se response has been
filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that 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.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Judgment rendered and Opinion
filed May 16, 2002.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Guzman.
Do not publish C Tex. R.
App. P. 47.3(b).