Ricky Phillip Maness v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 7, 2010
• Docket: 14-09-00833-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Memorandum Opinion of August 26, 2010 Withdrawn; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 7, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00833-CR

RICKY PHILLIP MANESS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1225766

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

The memorandum opinion of August 26, 2010 is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place. 

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to felony driving while intoxicated.  On July 29, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  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 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).  At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him.  Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response even after receiving an extension.  On September 9, 2010, after this court issued its opinion, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, 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 Justices Anderson, Frost, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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