Court Opinion

ID: 4661772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-22 08:15:05.161196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:16.417121
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 18, 2021.

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-20-00121-CR

                     JAMES RYON SHAVER, Appellant

                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 412th District Court
                           Brazoria County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 80523-CR

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide and in exchange the
trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant under community
supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial
court adjudicated guilt. From that conviction, appellant brought this 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 (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, 811–13 (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
60 days have 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).

      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                       PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2