Thomas Mutyevita Mulwa v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 178th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 4, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-09-00415-CR ____________ THOMAS MUTYEVITA MULWA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1118924 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a guilty plea to assault on a family member. On March 11, 2008, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant s guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the motion to adjudicate true. On April 23, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (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 12 (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). A copy of the record was provided to appellant. As of this date, more than forty-five days have elapsed since appellant received the record and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief 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 Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
