Court Opinion

ID: 2930408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 00:22:09.34433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:45.245821
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-03-01066-CR
____________
 
KEVIN MARSHALL KINGSBURY, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County,
Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
897,325
 

 
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
robbery.  On March 20, 2002, in
accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial
court placed appellant on community supervision for four years.  On May 14, 2003, the State moved to revoke
appellant=s community supervision.  After a hearing on July 10, 2003, the trial
court granted the State=s motion and sentenced appellant to confinement for four
years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se 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), 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).  More than
sixty days have passed, and as of this date, 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.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing
to the jurisprudence of the state.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Judgment rendered and Memorandum
Opinion filed March 30, 2004.
Panel consists of Chief Justice
Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman. 
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).