Court Opinion

ID: 2983954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 21:52:40.953393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:15.640216
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2014.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-13-00716-CR

                        LEANDREW SMITH, Appellant

                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 185th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1376700

                 MEMORANDUM                      OPINION

      Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated sexual assault, and the trial
court assessed punishment, enhanced by one prior conviction, at confinement for
55 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 she 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, 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 Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2