Aresnio Ray August v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-10-00647-CR ____________ ARSENIO RAY AUGUST, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1239147 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of attempted burglary of a habitation. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement a finding of guilt was deferred and he was placed on three years deferred adjudication probation. On May 27, 2010, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant s guilt alleging he violated several conditions of probation. On July 13, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $300. 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. Crim. App.1991). 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Christopher and Jamison. Do Not Publish Tex.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.
