Arthur Chase v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Arthur Chase v. State

DecidedApril 16, 2009

Docket14-07-00731-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Arthur Chase v. State (Arthur Chase v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Chase v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of March 12, 2009, Withdrawn, Affirmed and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2009

Opinion of March 12, 2009, Withdrawn, Affirmed and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00731-CR

ARTHUR CHASE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1069821

S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On its own motion, the court withdraws the opinion issued March 12, 2009, and issues this substitute opinion.

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child. On August 22, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

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, 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, 811-12 (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 January 9, 2009, 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

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of March 12, 2009, Withdrawn, Affirmed and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2009

Opinion of March 12, 2009, Withdrawn, Affirmed and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00731-CR

ARTHUR CHASE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1069821

S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On its own motion, the court withdraws the opinion issued March 12, 2009, and issues this substitute opinion.

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child. On August 22, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

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, 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, 811-12 (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 January 9, 2009, 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

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arthur Chase v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-chase-v-state-texapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack