Nicholas James Best v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 5, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00447-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00447-CR

NICHOLAS JAMES BEST, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1081519

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of Aguilty@ to the offense of sexual assault.  The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for five years.  Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt.  Appellant entered a plea of Atrue@ to the State=s allegations and the trial court proceeded to adjudicate guilt.  On May 8, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $500.  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), 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, 811-12 (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, more than sixty days has elapsed and 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.  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 Frost, Brown, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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