Anthony William Brown v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 13, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00376-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 13, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00376-CR

ANTHONY WILLIAM BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1238098

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            A jury convicted appellant of theft of between $1,500 and $20,000.  The jury also found two enhancement paragraphs true.  On April 23, 2010, appellant was sentenced to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $10,000.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

            Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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), 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 provided 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 December 27, 2010, 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 or appellant’s response 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

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).