Gilfordv.State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, HoustonFeb 1, 2007
NO. 14-06-00046-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 1, 2007)

NO. 14-06-00046-CR.

February 1, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 339th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1020619.

Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FOWLER and EDELMAN.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery. On January 11, 2006, appellant was sentenced to confinement for fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely, written notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concluded 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), 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 (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). Appellant requested and was provided a copy of the record. As of this date, more than forty-five 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. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.