Damittcus Shavonta Golden v. State
This text of Damittcus Shavonta Golden v. State (Damittcus Shavonta Golden 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
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-08-00306-CR
DAMITTCUS SHAVONTA GOLDEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1137717
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted appellant of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant entered a plea of Atrue@ to two enhancement allegations and the jury sentenced appellant to confinement for thirty-eight 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 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, 811-12 (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). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed 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. 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 Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.
Do Not Publish C Tex.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
Damittcus Shavonta Golden v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damittcus-shavonta-golden-v-state-texapp-2009.