Ricky Phillip Maness v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 248th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 26, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-09-00833-CR
____________
RICKY PHILLIP MANESS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1225766
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of felony driving while intoxicated.
On July 29, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 20 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 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), 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 (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. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).
Though appellant has been given
adequate time to respond, as of this date, 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. 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 Anderson, Frost, 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Do Not Publish — Tex.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.