Jarald Marquise Murray Sr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 31, 2019
• Docket: 14-18-00735-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 31, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00735-CR

JARALD MARQUISE MURRAY SR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 82258-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jarald Marquise Murray appeals his conviction for injury to a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.04(f). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a pro se response.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response and agree the appeal is 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 trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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