Steven Anthony Hanks v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 9, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00774-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00774-CR

STEVE ANTHONY HANKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06CR1578

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender.  Further, appellant entered a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph increasing the range of punishment to that of a second degree felony.  On July 3, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty 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 this 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 of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (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).  As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed 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.  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 Seymore, Brown, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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