Bruce Edward Henderson v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    §
    BRUCE EDWARD HENDERSON,                                      No. 08-15-00296-CR
    §
    Appellant,                                  Appeal from
    §
    v.                                                           372nd District Court
    §
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                        of Tarrant County, Texas
    §
    Appellee.                                (TC # 1389909D)
    §
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Bruce Edward Henderson appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly
    weapon, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charged
    offense before a jury and the trial court conducted a unitary proceeding.              TEX.CODE
    CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 26.14 (West 2009); see Frame v. State, 
    615 S.W.2d 766
    , 767
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). Appellant also entered a plea of true to the enhancement paragraph. The
    jury found Appellant guilty, found the enhancement paragraph true, and assessed Appellant’s
    punishment at imprisonment for a term of forty years. We affirm.
    FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
    Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded 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
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967), by presenting a professional
    evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
    advanced. See In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an
    Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
    must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
    authorities.”); High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the
    Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to
    Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and
    to seek discretionary review.      Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.
    2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a copy of the
    appellate record. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.
    We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is
    wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably
    support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    December 21, 2016
    ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
    Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
    (Do Not Publish)
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-15-00296-CR

Filed Date: 12/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/26/2016