Martin Jr., Ernest Lee v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2003
• Docket: 14-03-00247-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 24, 2003

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 24, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00247-CR

ERNEST LEE MARTIN JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 939,819

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant was found guilty of the felony offense of criminal mischief.  On February 25, 2003, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in a state jail facility, assessed a fine of $10,000, and ordered appellant to pay restitution to the complainant in the amount of $1,696.28.  The trial count also sentenced appellant to confinement in the Harris County Jail for 220 days as punishment for contempt of court.  Appellant filed a pro se 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 requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by 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).  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 Opinion filed July 24, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Edelman

Do Not Publish C Tex.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