No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shannon Bernard Jackson
v.
State
v.
State
Published
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 15, 2020.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-19-00229-CR
SHANNON BERNARD JACKSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 56th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-CR-3031
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Shannon Bernard Jackson appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Tex. Pen. Code § 22.021(a)(1)(b)(i). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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 right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. 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 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 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 trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-19-00229-CR
SHANNON BERNARD JACKSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 56th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-CR-3031
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Shannon Bernard Jackson appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Tex. Pen. Code § 22.021(a)(1)(b)(i). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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 right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. 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 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 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 trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[*2]