Pedro Santibanez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 17, 2009
• Docket: 14-09-00496-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 17, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00496-CR

PEDRO SANTIBANEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1198731

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            Appellant entered a guilty plea without an agreed recommendation on punishment to burglary of a habitation. On February 4, 2009, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. On April 14, 2009, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Appellant entered a plea of true, and on May 28, 2009, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $500. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

            Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this 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). Appellant was granted an extension of time until November 9, 2009, to file his pro se response. 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. 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 Anderson and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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