Ray Norris Randall v. State

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 5, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00374-CR RAY NORRIS RANDALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 959285 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for ten years with ninety days’ confinement as a condition of probation. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt alleging that he violated his probation by failing to pay supervision fees, fines, and court costs, and committing another offense. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for eighteen 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 she 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 (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). As of this date, more than forty-five days has passed 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. 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 McCally, Busby, and Donovan. Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2