Leonardo Martinez Lozano v. State
This text of Leonardo Martinez Lozano v. State (Leonardo Martinez Lozano v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 21, 2013.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-12-00526-CR
LEONARDO MARTINEZ LOZANO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1277258
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, to aggravated robbery with the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. On April 23, 2012, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to confinement for five years in the Institutional 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 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), 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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se brief. We 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 Boyce and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Leonardo Martinez Lozano v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonardo-martinez-lozano-v-state-texapp-2013.