Christopher Soto-Johnson v. State
This text of Christopher Soto-Johnson v. State (Christopher Soto-Johnson 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.
Opinion
Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4, 2012.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-12-00316-CR
CHRISTOPHER SOTO-JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1251860
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. After a pre-sentence investigation and hearing, on February 29, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for seven 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 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 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex.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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Soto-Johnson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-soto-johnson-v-state-texapp-2012.