Court Opinion

ID: 2984498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 22:02:51.490644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:09.502395
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 20, 2014.

                                     In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-13-00218-CR

                  DANIEL MICAH VERMILYEA, Appellant

                                        V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 176th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1335846

                 MEMORANDUM                     OPINION

      Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to indecency with a child. On March 8,
2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine 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 requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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 (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). As of this date, more than
forty-five days has 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, Christopher, and Brown.
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2