Court Opinion

ID: 9949247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-10 08:16:07.695322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:19.815782
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 7, 2024.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-23-00196-CR

                       BRYAN WILLIAMS, Appellant

                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 180th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 1681638

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault. Appellant’s appointed
counsel filed a brief in which he 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). The brief further meets
the requirements of Anders by assigning issues that might arguably support the
appeal, and explaining why those issues do not raise arguable error warranting
relief in this appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969).

      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. On January 11, 2024, appellant filed a pro se response
to counsel’s brief.

      We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro
se response 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).

      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2