Derrick Jemaine Allison v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted, Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 22, 2011.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-10-01045-CR
____________
DERRICK JEMAINE ALLISON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1211015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a habitation. On October 20, 2010, the
trial court sentenced appellant, Justice in accordance with the jury’s assessment, to
confinement for thirty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that 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), 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, more than forty-five days has
passed and 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 Anderson and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex.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.
