Prentiss Anderson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 24, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00354-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 24, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00354-CR

PRENTISS ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1195049

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  On March 19, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five 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), 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 (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. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).  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.  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, Justices Frost and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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