Harvey Gean Emerson, Appellant, v. The State of Texas, Appellee. (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harvey Gean Emerson appeals his conviction of injury to a child.  A jury found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty-five years.  We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App.2008)(“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);  High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).  Counsel has notified the Court in writing that she has delivered a copy of counsel's brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and she has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and to seek discretionary review.  Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex.Crim.App.2014)(setting forth duties of counsel).  Appellant has been provided access to the appellate record and has filed a pro se brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, the pro se brief, and Appellant's motion for new trial and opposition to counsel's motion to withdraw.  We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  A further discussion of the issues advanced in Appellant's pro se brief and his motion for new trial would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  We deny Appellant's motion for new trial and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice