Muirajcio Argueta v. The State of texas--Appeal from 248th 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. 14-09-00440-CR ____________ MUIRAJCIO ARGUETA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1209132 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Muirajcio Argueta entered a not guilty plea to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. He was convicted by a jury and the trial court sentenced him to confinement for 25 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 he 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 possible issues for appeal. 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). As of this date, more than 60 days have elapsed 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 Justices Yates, Seymore, and Brown. Do Not Publish Tex.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.
