Glunt, Stephen Delano v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 28, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00655-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion of February 23, 2006, Withdrawn, and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion of February 23, 2006, Withdrawn, and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00655-CR

STEPHEN DELANO GLUNT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 743,466

C O R R E C T E D  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 sexual assault of a child.  On July 25, 1997, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years and assessed a fine of $500.  On June 24, 2005, after finding appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision, on June 24, 2005the trial court adjudicated appellant=s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for life 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), 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).  As of this date, more than sixty days have 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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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