Nicole Yvette Bonner-Lewis v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 26, 2007
• Docket: 14-06-00998-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2007

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00998-CR

NICOLE YVETTE BONNER-LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1006429

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 aggravated assault.  On March 10, 2005, the trial court entered an order deferring adjudication of guilt and placing appellant on community supervision for ten years.  The state subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt.  On  October 11, 2006, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated assault and sentenced appellant to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a 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 requirement 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).  At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him.  On July 2, 2007, 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 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

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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