Stephen Jay Sandbloom v. State

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 6, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00032-CR

STEPHEN JAY SANDBLOOM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCR-053774A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty 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 requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation

2

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, 512 (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Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). .