Delvin E. Bradford v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 5, 2009
• Docket: 14-07-00441-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00441-CR

NO. 14-07-00442-CR

DELVIN E. BRADFORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1085154, 1085155

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offenses of attempted capital murder (Trial Court Cause No. 1085154, Appeal No. 14-07-00441-CR) and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (Trial Court Cause No. 1085155, Appeal No. 14-07-00442-CR).  On May 23, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant in both causes to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal in both causes.

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record in each cause 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 records 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 in each cause was provided to him.  On January 23, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record in each cause and counsel=s brief, as well as appellant=s pro se response. We  agree with counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, in each cause 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, in each cause 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).