Henry Amador v. State

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 19, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00579-CR

HENRY AMADOR, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1390567

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. On June 13, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty 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 he 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), 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 (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. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). The record was provided to appellant. As of this date, 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. 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 Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).