Court Opinion

ID: 9951473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-17 07:17:18.417708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:51.708619
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 2024.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-22-00697-CR

                  JORDAN O'NEAL VANDYKE, Appellant

                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 149th District Court
                          Brazoria County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 92018-CR

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant appeals the adjudication of his guilt for the third-degree felony
offense of Assault Family Member Impeding Breath and the second-degree felony
offense of Assault Peace Officer. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B) and
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b-2). 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 (1967), presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on appeal. 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 did not file 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 Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                            2