SAMUEL RAY HENDERSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Bridges

A jury convicted Samuel Ray Henderson of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, assessed punishment at seven years' imprisonment, and recommended probation.   The trial court placed appellant on five years' community supervision.   On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.¹  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).   The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance.   See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).   Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.   We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (court of appeals's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues).   We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Counsel notes, among other things, that the evidence in this case is both legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction.   The court of criminal appeals's recent decision in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (plurality op.), concluded the Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt..  FN1. Counsel notes, among other things, that the evidence in this case is both legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction.   The court of criminal appeals's recent decision in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (plurality op.), concluded the Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE