Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2010

Andre Roberts v. State

Andre Roberts v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 4, 2010

Andre Roberts v. State

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 4, 2010.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-09-00040-CR

____________

 

ANDRE RISHAWN ROBERTS, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 92382

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana. Pursuant to an agreement with the State on punishment, on March 10, 2008, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1000 fine. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt. After finding three of the allegations in the State’s motion true, on December 1, 2008, the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for nine 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 requirement 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, 510 (Tex. (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. 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 Christopher.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.