Court Opinion

ID: 2990237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-23 02:57:09.937951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:24.319807
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 22, 2012.

                                         In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals
                                    ____________

                                 NO. 14-11-00589-CR
                                   ____________

                             JOHN BALLARD, Appellant

                                           V.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                       On Appeal from the 179th District Court
                                Harris County, Texas
                           Trial Court Cause No. 1283921

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

       The trial court convicted appellant of assault on a public servant.      Appellant
entered a plea of true to two enhancement paragraphs alleged in the indictment. On July
5, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-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 requirements 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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days has
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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Jamison and McCally.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                             2