ANTHONY BERNARD LOFTIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 16, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00430-CR
............................
ANTHONY BERNARD LOFTIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F08-15840-T
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Richter
        Anthony Bernard Loftis appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant's attorney 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). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.
        Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. However, a court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the Court's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Id.
        After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100430F.U05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.