REESE v. STATE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Jacob A. REESE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 14–16–00617–CR

Decided: May 25, 2017

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Jacob A. Reese, Pro se Appellant. Angela Lee Cameron, Daucie Shefman Schindler, for Jacob A. Reese. Kim K. Ogg, Dan McCrory, Eric Kugler, the State of Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 811–13 (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). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and 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