Summary
concluding that the appeal was "wholly frivolous and without merit"
Summary of this case from Bogus v. DavisOpinion
NO. 14-15-00832-CR
04-13-2017
BRETT DAVID BOGUS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1433472
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Brett David Bogus entered a plea of guilty to theft over $200,000 and the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty 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), 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). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On March 16, 2017, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief and pro se response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when, as in this case, 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 Frost and Justices Donovan and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).