Court Opinion

ID: 2992233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-23 04:05:26.449904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:49.598382
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 27, 2011.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-09-00993-CR
____________
 
RONALD EUGENE HAWKINS, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 178th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1180372
 

 
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon.  The jury found the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs
were true and sentenced appellant to confinement for eighty-five 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 requirement 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).  At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him.  On January
10, 2011, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and
appellant’s response, and agree 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.  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
Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).