Miguel Angel Hernandez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 21, 2018
• Docket: 14-16-00735-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00735-CR NO. 14-16-00736-CR

MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1458828 & 1458829

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his convictions for robbery and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), 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 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). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On August 17, 2017, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeals are 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. 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 Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).