Dixonv.State

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of AppealsJul 30, 2015
NO. 14-14-00725-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2015)

NO. 14-14-00725-CR

07-30-2015

DWAYNE DIXON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1399246


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. On August 1, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 35 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 requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), 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 (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). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On June 30, 2015, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response, 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PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).