Dallas Andrew Cantwell v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 12, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-01209-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 12, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-01209-CR

DALLAS ANDREW CANTWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1267922

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Following a trial before the bench, appellant was convicted of the offense of robbery.  On November 18, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for four years in the Institutional Division of the 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).

            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 July 1, 2011, 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

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Boyce.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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