Wanda Kay Jackson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 14, 2013
• Docket: 14-12-00592-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00592-CR NO. 14-12-00593-CR

WANDA KAY JACKSON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Two Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1235806D & 1256791D

MEMORANDUM OPINION In cause number 1235806D, appellant was charged with arson of a habitation, including a deadly weapon allegation. In cause number 1256791D, appellant was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon on the premises of an office utilized by a court. On January 13, 2012, appellant entered guilty pleas to the arson and weapon charges. After a presentence investigation, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and found appellant guilty of both offenses and that a deadly weapon was used in the arson offense. On May 29, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison on the arson case and six years in prison on the weapon charge, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are 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 records 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 records 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 sixty days has passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).