Court Opinion

ID: 4393502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-02 22:46:09.856095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:00.778559
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2019.

                                           In The

                       Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                  NO. 14-18-00622-CR

                             STEVE SALINAS, Appellant

                                              V.
                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 119th District Court
                            Runnels County, Texas1
                           Trial Court Cause No. 6686

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Steve Salinas appeals his conviction for felony driving while
intoxicated. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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

       1
         This case was transferred to our court from the Austin Court of Appeals; therefore, we
must decide the case in accordance with its precedent if our decision would be otherwise
inconsistent with its precedent. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
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).

      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 60
days have 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 Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                          2