Ramon Contreras v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 13, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00743-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed 13, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00743-CR

RAMON CONTRERAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 13

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1600970

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to driving while intoxicated.  On July 21, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for three days in the Harris County Jail, probated for one year.  Appellant filed a timely 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 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 (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 forty-five days has passed 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.  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Do Not Publish — Tex.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).