Court Opinion

ID: 9881344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-01 08:09:57.640425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:16.836553
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 28, 2023.

                                      In The

                   Fourteenth Court of Appeals
                                  ____________

                             NO. 14-22-00662-CR
                                  ____________

                    MACE TRAVIS BONNER, Appellant
                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 506th District Court
                           Grimes County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 18877

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Mace Travis Bonner appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a
child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2). 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
(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). At appellant’s request, the
record was provided to him. As of this date, more than 30 days have passed since
the record was provided 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).

      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2