No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gabriel Mora
v.
State
v.
State
14-15-01064-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Aug 9, 2016.
Unpublished opinion
Published
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9, 2016.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-15-01064-CR
GABRIEL MORA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1466434
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Gabriel Mora, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03. 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. Appellant was advised of his rights to view the 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 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. 14-15-01064-CR
GABRIEL MORA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1466434
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Gabriel Mora, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03. 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. Appellant was advised of his rights to view the 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 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 Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).