Anthony Rahmon Sutton v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 31, 2013
• Docket: 14-12-00370-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 31, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00370-CR

ANTHONY RAHMON SUTTON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1292456

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to credit card abuse. On February 23, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for six months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that 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 sixty 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).