Phillip Price v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 28, 2010
• Docket: 14-08-00043-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 28, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00043-CR

PHILIP PRICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1102545

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $10,000 fine. On January 9, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict. 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 provided a copy of the record, and granted thirty days to file a pro se response. As of this date, more than forty-five days have elapsed and appellant has not filed a pro se response or a request for additional time.

            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Do Not Publish — Tex.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).