Bronson v. State

Full title: MARCUS DAWAYNE BRONSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Apr 22, 2010

No. 01-09-00266-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 22, 2010)

Opinion

No. 01-09-00266-CR

Opinion issued April 22, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1154320.

Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, HANKS, and BLAND.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TERRY JENNINGS, Justice.

A jury found appellant, Marcus Dawayne Bronson, guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery, ¹ and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could "conceivably persuade the court." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In our review, we consider appellant's pro se response, if any, to his counsel's Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in two issues that the investigating police officer impermissibly suggested that the complainant select appellant out of the in-person line-up and appellant did not have a lawyer present at the line-up. Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003).

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.² See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).