Hugh Audrie Carter, III v. The State of Texas Appeal from 338th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 21, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00060-CR NO. 14-14-00061-CR HUGH AUDRIE CARTER, III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1366763 and 1367859 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and entered a plea of true to one enhancement paragraph. On January 7, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant in each case to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. 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 advancing frivolous contentions which arguably might support the appeal. See Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The record in each case was provided to appellant and on September 15, 2014, he filed a pro se response to counsel s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record in each case, 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 in each case. We note that no motion for new trial was filed to develop a record regarding appellant s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. A discussion of the brief 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby. 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.
