Darius Miguel Dunham v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 2, 2021
• Docket: 14-21-00035-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 2, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00035-CR

DARIUS MIGUEL DUNHAM, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCR-078321

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Darius Miguel Dunham appeals his conviction for indecency with a child by exposure. Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. 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 appeal is 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 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 trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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