Bradford Jr., Clyde Eugene v. State

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2004

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2004.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-03-00002-CR

____________

 

CLYDE EUGENE BRADFORD JR., Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 908,593

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  On December 4, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 30  years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se 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 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 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).  As of this date, 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.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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