No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary Edmund Haynes
v.
State
v.
State
14-15-00752-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jul 26, 2016.
Unpublished opinion
Published
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2016.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-15-00752-CR
GARY EDMUND HAYNES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1441991
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Gary Edmund Haynes appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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 in January, 2016. Appellant was advised of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon appellant’s request, the record was provided to appellant in February, 2016. As of this date, more than 60 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response to the brief.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief carefully 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.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-15-00752-CR
GARY EDMUND HAYNES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1441991
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Gary Edmund Haynes appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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 in January, 2016. Appellant was advised of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon appellant’s request, the record was provided to appellant in February, 2016. As of this date, more than 60 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response to the brief.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief carefully 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
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).