Court Opinion

ID: 2935591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 04:01:19.548187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:26.123298
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 2009

Affirmed
and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 2009.
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-08-00512-CR
____________
 
DEONDRE PARKER,
Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 337th District
Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
1128815
 

 
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.  On February 21,
2008, the trial court entered an order of deferred adjudication, placing
appellant on community supervision for seven years.  The State subsequently
filed a motion to adjudicate and on May 29, 2008, the trial court adjudicated
appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery and sentenced appellant
to confinement for ten 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 she 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 3, 2009, 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, Guzman, and
Sullivan. 
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).