Swanson, Shannon Duray v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-05-00317-CR;

14-05-00318-CR;

14-05-00319-CR;

14-05-00320-CR

____________

SHANNON DURAY SWANSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 988,287; 988,288; 988,289; & 988,290

________________________________________________________________

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 offenses of burglary of a habitation, aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated robbery. On February 17, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant in each cause to confinement for 60 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal.


Appellant=s appointed counsel filed briefs in each cause, in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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).

Copies of counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate records and file pro se responses. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant requested a copy of the records and this court issued an order, directing the District Clerk to forward copies of the record to appellant. In this order, we provided that appellant=s pro se responses were to be filed thirty days after appellant received the records. This court was notified that appellant had received the records on August 22, 2005. Thus, appellant=s pro se responses were due on September 21, 2005. As of this date, no pro se responses have been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel=s briefs and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the briefs 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 27, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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