Kingsbury, Kevin Marshall v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 30, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-01066-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-01066-CR

KEVIN MARSHALL KINGSBURY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 897,325

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 robbery.  On March 20, 2002, in accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court placed appellant on community supervision for four years.  On May 14, 2003, the State moved to revoke appellant=s community supervision.  After a hearing on July 10, 2003, the trial court granted the State=s motion and sentenced appellant to confinement for four years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. 

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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).  More than sixty days have passed, and 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.  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 Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004.

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

Do Not Publish C Tex.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