Steve Salinas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2019
• Docket: 14-18-00622-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00622-CR

STEVE SALINAS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 119th District Court Runnels County, Texas1 Trial Court Cause No. 6686

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Steve Salinas appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation

1 This case was transferred to our court from the Austin Court of Appeals; therefore, we must decide the case in accordance with its precedent if our decision would be otherwise inconsistent with its precedent. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (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 60 days have 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 Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).