Andevron S. Parchman v. State

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 5, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 5, 2009.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-08-00733-CR

____________

 

ANDEVRON S. PARCHMAN, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 7th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 007-0517-08

 

 

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 sexual assault of a child.  Appellant elected to have a jury assess his punishment.  At the conclusion of a punishment hearing, the jury assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $10,000 fine.  On July 17, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury=s verdict.  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), 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, 811-12 (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, 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.  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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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