Courtney Dran Sargent v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2018
• Docket: 14-17-00311-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00309-CR NO. 14-17-00311-CR

COURTNEY DRAN SARGENT, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 16CR0338 & 16CR0339

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by assigning issues that might arguably support the appeal, and explaining why those issues do not raise arguable error. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969.] 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 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).