Court Opinion

ID: 2983978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 21:53:06.877719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:15.697274
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2014.

                                         In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                   NO. 14-13-00800-CR

                    ARNOLD RAY HOLCOMBE, Appellant

                                           V.
                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 176th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1368020

                  MEMORANDUM                      OPINION

      Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to forgery of a government financial
instrument, and the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 25 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 (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 and the record were 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 Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2