Tolpo, Alexander Carl v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 177th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00430-CR

NO. 14-05-00431-CR

____________

ALEXANDER CARL TOLPO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 881,721 & 986,264

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

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggregate theft of cash in an amount between $100,000 and $200,000 in cause number 881,721. On January 17, 2002, the trial court deferred a finding a guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. Appellant later entered a plea of true to the State=s motion to adjudicate. On March 21, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.


Appellant also entered a plea of guilty in cause number 986,264 to another charge of aggregate theft of cash in an amount between $100,000 and $200,000. On March 21, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice., to be served concurrently with the sentence in cause number 881,721. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from each conviction.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief for both appeals in which he concludes the 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), 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 in each case and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel=s brief and agree these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2005.

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

Do Not Publish C Tex.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