Elvin Fitzgerald Hall v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 27, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00145-CR

____________

ELVIN FITZGERALD HALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1042503

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On February 7, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for fifty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (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, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him. On August 31, 2007, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief, in which he questioned the voluntariness of his plea, the lack of the judge=s signature on his plea, the evidence in the pre-sentence investigation report, the amendment of the indictment, and whether the Anders procedures satisfy due process.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. 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

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 27, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.47.2(b).