Jacyl Shira Martin v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 31, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00688-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00688-CR

JACYL SHIRA MARTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08-05086

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to forgery.  On August 3, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement in a state jail for two years, probated for five years.  The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant’s probation.  Appellant entered a plea of “not true” to the first count in the motion and a plea of “true” to the second count.  After a hearing, the trial court found both counts true.  On July 6, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that 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).  As of this date, more than ninety days has passed since counsel’s brief was filed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.

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 Hedges and Justices Frost and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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