Epifanio Acuna v. State

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 26, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00154-CR EPIFANIO ACUNA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1374428 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of possession of less than one gram of cocaine. On February 18, 2013, in accordance with the jury’s assessment of punishment, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for three 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 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 (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 sixty days have 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 need not 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 Brown, Christopher, and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2