Richard Dean Powell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Richard Dean Powell v. State

DecidedMarch 12, 2009

Docket14-08-00366-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Richard Dean Powell v. State (Richard Dean Powell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Dean Powell v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00366-CR

NO. 14-08-00367-CR

RICHARD DEAN POWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1077838 & 1089375

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. In each case, the trial court found the enhancement allegation true and on April 15, 2008, sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the sentences to run concurrently. See Tex. Pen. Code ' 12.42(c)(2). Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal in each case 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). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

In each case, we have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, in each case 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 in each case.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00366-CR

NO. 14-08-00367-CR

RICHARD DEAN POWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1077838 & 1089375

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. In each case, the trial court found the enhancement allegation true and on April 15, 2008, sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the sentences to run concurrently. See Tex. Pen. Code ' 12.42(c)(2). Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal in each case 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). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

In each case, we have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, in each case 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 in each case.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richard Dean Powell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-dean-powell-v-state-texapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack