Christopher Newby v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Christopher Newby v. State

DecidedSeptember 10, 2013

Docket14-13-00151-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Newby v. State (Christopher Newby 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

Christopher Newby v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 10, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00151-CR

CHRISTOPHER NEWBY, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1338941

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. After a presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced appellant on February 19, 2013, to confinement for fifteen 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 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 (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 need not 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 Frost, Boyce, and Jamison. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 10, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00151-CR

CHRISTOPHER NEWBY, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1338941

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. After a presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced appellant on February 19, 2013, to confinement for fifteen 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 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 (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 need not 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 Frost, Boyce, and Jamison. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher Newby v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-newby-v-state-texapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack