AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01613-CR
MICHAEL DEE CAVE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-59553-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Michael Dee Cave appeals his conviction for theft of property having a value less than
$1,500, and having two prior theft convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a),
(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at one year’s confinement in a
state jail. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in
effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate
courts and counsel in Anders cases).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID SCHENCK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
141613F.U05
-2-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL DEE CAVE, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-01613-CR V. F14-59553-H).
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-3-