|
|
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
|
ANTHONY WHITE,
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee. |
'
'
'
'
'
'
|
No. 08-11-00130-CR
Appeal from the
89th District Court
of Wichita County, Texas
(TC#44,289-C)
|
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony White entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon.[1] He was convicted, and the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at seventy years’ confinement. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states, and her brief demonstrates that she has performed a professional evaluation of the record, and that she has concluded the record contains no reversible error and no jurisdictional defects. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief and the appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief, which he has done.
We have carefully reviewed the record, including counsel’s brief, Appellant’s response, and the State’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The issues raised in Appellant’s pro se brief have no arguable merit. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. A discussion of the contentions advanced in the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not required to address the merits of each claim raised in a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
December 21, 2012 GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.
(Do Not Publish)
[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 22.02(a)(2), (b)(2)(B) (West 2011).