Robert James Tyrrell v. State

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 29, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01107-CR

ROBERT JAMES TYRRELL, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 68206

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant of theft and sentenced him to prison for fifteen years. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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 advancing frivolous contentions which might arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436

S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); and Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

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). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On July 12, 2013, 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 Jamison, McCally, and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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