Court Opinion

ID: 2933207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 02:39:40.332675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:07.262321
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2007

Affirmed
and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2007.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-06-00998-CR
____________
 
NICOLE YVETTE BONNER-LEWIS, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 262nd District
Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
1006429
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
Appellant
entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault.  On March 10,
2005, the trial court entered an order deferring adjudication of guilt and
placing appellant on community supervision for ten years.  The state
subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt.  On  October 11, 2006, the trial court
adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated assault and sentenced
appellant to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a 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 requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967), 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).  At appellant=s request, the record was provided to
him.  On July 2, 2007, appellant filed 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
 
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July
26, 2007.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and
Seymore.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).