Court Opinion

ID: 4093959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-31 10:26:09.828851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:39.961513
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25, 2016.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-16-00085-CR

                 JAMES LAWRENCE MCCARTY, Appellant
                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 230th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1431305

                 MEMORANDUM                      OPINION

      Appellant entered a plea of no contest to murder. The trial court sentenced
appellant to confinement for 55 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 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 and 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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the
record was provided to him. 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 Jamison, McCally and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                          2