Court Opinion

ID: 9406621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-02 08:10:52.547568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.943299
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 29, 2023

                                           In The

                       Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                   NO. 14-21-00492-CR

                    JOSHUA OFARON WILLIAMS, Appellant
                                              V.
                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 209th District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 1632019

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant appeals his conviction for murder. 1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
                                                            0F

19.02(b). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which counsel 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

       1
          Appellant also pleaded true to a prior conviction for felony possession with intent to
deliver a controlled substance.
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).

      Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                       PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2