Charles Anthony Colbert v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 13, 2007
• Docket: 14-06-01141-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2007

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-01141-CR

CHARLES ANTHONY COLBERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 926096

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 robbery.  The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision on January 31, 2003.  The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant=s guilt, and appellant entered a plea of Anot true.@  After hearing evidence, the trial court adjudicated appellant=s guilt, and on December 6, 2006, sentenced appellant to confinement for sixty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $10,000 fine.  Appellant filed a written 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. Crim. App. 1991).  At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him.  On August 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 September 13, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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