Court Opinion

ID: 2933063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 02:38:00.045141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:06.622623
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2007

Affirmed
and Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2007.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-06-01141-CR
____________
 
CHARLES ANTHONY COLBERT, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 177th District
Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 926096 
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
Appellant
entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery.  The trial court
deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision on
January 31, 2003.  The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate
appellant=s guilt, and appellant entered a plea of Anot true.@  After hearing evidence, the trial
court adjudicated appellant=s guilt, and on December 6, 2006, sentenced appellant to
confinement for sixty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $10,000 fine.  Appellant filed a
written 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 August 2, 2007, 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
 
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed
September 13, 2007.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices
Anderson and Seymore. 
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).