Dimple Shaw v. The State of Texas Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 14, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00638-CR NO. 14-15-00639-CR DIMPLE SHAW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1448956 & 1448957 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Dimple Shaw, appeals his convictions for (1) evading arrest in a motor vehicle (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A)), and (2) possession of a controlled substance, morphine, weighing more than one gram but less than four grams (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102, 481.115). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief and the record were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed, and no pro se response has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief carefully and agree the appeals are 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.