Court Opinion

ID: 2928015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-12 00:57:30.298088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:26.068082
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 18, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 18, 2002.
 
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NOS.
14-01-01149-CR,
              14-01-01150-CR, &
         14-01-01151-CR
____________
 
BEN JOHNSON, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
_______________________________________________________
 
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 876,073; 876,072; & 876,071
 
_______________________________________________________
 
M E M O R A
N D U M  O P I N
I O N
            Appellant entered pleas of guilty to
three counts of aggravated robbery.  On October 10, 2001, the trial
court sentenced appellant to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count, sentences
to run concurrently.  Appellant filed a
notice of appeal.
            Appellant’s appointed counsel filed
a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without
merit.  The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record 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,
510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, no pro se response has been
filed.
            We have carefully reviewed the
record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeals are 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.
            Accordingly, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
 
                                                                        PER
CURIAM
 
Judgment rendered and Opinion
filed July 18, 2002.
Panel consists of Justices
Hudson, Fowler, and Edelman. 
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).