Rodney Dale Hood v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 29, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00687-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2011, Withdrawn and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed April 29, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00687-CR

RODNEY DALE HOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 410th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-01-00283-CR

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION

            A jury convicted appellant of felony driving while intoxicated.  The trial court found two enhancement paragraphs “true” and sentenced appellant to confinement for 50 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), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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).  At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him.  On January 10, 2011, 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 Brown, Boyce, and Jamison.[1]

Do Not Publish — Tex.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

---

[1] We issue this Opinion to reflect the correct panel.