Arturo Jimenez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 24, 2010
• Docket: 14-09-00909-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 24, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00909-CR

ARTURO JIMENEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1195330

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. On October 21, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely 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), 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, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, 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 Justices Brown, Sullivan, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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