Consuelo Gray v. the State of Texas

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 18, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00795-CR

CONSUELO GRAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22-01816-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Consuelo Gray appeals her conviction for manufacture or delivery
of a controlled substance causing death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Health &
Safety Code § 481.141. 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).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

2