Anthony William Brown v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 338th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 13, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-10-00376-CR ____________ ANTHONY WILLIAM BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1238098 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of theft of between $1,500 and $20,000. The jury also found two enhancement paragraphs true. On April 23, 2010, appellant was sentenced to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $10,000. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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 provided 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). At appellant s request, the record was provided to him. On December 27, 2010, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and appellant s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief or appellant s response 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 Anderson, Seymore and McCally. Do Not Publish Tex.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.
