Thompson, Robert Earl v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 30, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00464-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00464-CR

ROBERT EARL THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 973,145

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced on May 3, 2005, to confinement for 29 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

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), 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 sent to appellant on November 14, 2005.  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).  Appellant filed a motion on December 27, 2005, requesting an extension of time to file a pro se response and asking to review the record.  On January 5, 2006, this court issued an order, directing the Harris County District Clerk to forward a copy of the record to appellant and ordering appellant to file the pro se response thirty days after the record was received.  The Harris County District Clerk advised this court that appellant received a copy of the record on January 17, 2006.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing the pro se response was February 16, 2006.  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed and no request for an extension 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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Edelman, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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