Deondre Parker v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 19, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00512-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00512-CR

DEONDRE PARKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1128815

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 offense of aggravated robbery.  On February 21, 2008, the trial court entered an order of deferred adjudication, placing appellant on community supervision for seven years.  The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate and on May 29, 2008, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery and sentenced appellant to confinement for ten 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 she 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 March 3, 2009, 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 Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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