Danielle Pope v. The State of Texas Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00314-CR NO. 14-22-00315-CR NO. 14-22-00320-CR NO. 14-22-00321-CR DANIELLE POPE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1706082, 1706083, 1706085, 1706087 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Danielle Pope appeals his convictions for two charges of aggravated assault of a public servant, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a felon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02, 29.03, & 46.04. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 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 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). As of this date, more than 60 days have 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). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. /s/ Jerry Zimmerer Justice Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.