Court Opinion

ID: 2993186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-23 04:40:38.70024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:16.805871
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and
Memorandum Opinion filed April 1, 2010.
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-09-00488-CR
____________
 
LEONARD ANDRE WATKINS, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
 

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1206944
 
 

MEMORANDUM
OPINION
            Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the offense of delivery
of less than one gram of cocaine.  On May 21, 2009, the trial court sentenced
appellant to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a 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), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 March
1, 2010, 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
Yates, Seymore, and Brown. 
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).