David R. Dunnagan v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 23, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00934-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00934-CR

DAVID R. DUNNAGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1036151

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to indecency with a child.  In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, on February 15, 2008, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt on August 26, 2008.  Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations in the motion.  On September 5, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for three years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes this 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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