Christopher Terrell Davis v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00759-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00759-CR

CHRISTOPHER TERRELL DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

 Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 937,527

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance on April 21, 2003.  In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, assessed a fine of $750, and ordered appellant to perform 200 hours of community service.  Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt.  Appellant entered a plea of  Atrue@ to one of the State=s allegations.  The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to confinement for eight months in State Jail Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a 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), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

More than three months ago, a copy of counsel=s brief, together with a copy of the entire appellate record, was delivered to appellant at his last known address.  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.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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