Franklin Womack v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 15, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00718-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 15, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 15, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00718-CR

FRANKLIN WOMACK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 217th District Court

Angelina County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 24,663

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to assault of a public servant. On November 22, 2005, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for three years and assessed a $1,000 fine.  The State later moved to adjudicate appellant=s guilt, alleging several violations of the terms of the community supervision order.  After a hearing on June 5, 2008, the trial court adjudicated appellant=s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely written 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore. 

Do Not Publish C Tex.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