Saks Fifth Avenue of Texas, Inc. v. Betty R. Lott ( 2002 )

NO. 07-01-00292-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

APRIL 30, 2002

______________________________

SAKS FIFTH AVENUE OF TEXAS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

BETTY R. LOTT,

Appellee _________________________________

FROM THE 55^TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

NO. 99-58410; HON. SHERRY RADACK, PRESIDING _______________________________

Dismissal________________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, J.J.

Prior to its scheduled March 26, 2002 oral argument in Houston, Saks Fifth Avenue of Texas, Inc., appellant, represented to this court (viz letter dated March 22, 2002) that "the parties [had] reached a settlement" in the present case. The case was then vacated based on same. A letter was then sent to the parties informing them that "[i]f the court [did] not receive the settlement by April 29, 2002, the case [would] be dismissed based on [their] representation that it had been settled." Having not received any response from the parties, we dismiss the cause pursuant to appellant's representation that the dispute was settled.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

was no reversible error and of appellant's right to appeal pro se. By letter dated April 28, 2004, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own briefs or responses by May 27, 2004, if he wished to do so. To date, appellant has failed to file a response or a motion for extension of time to file same.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal which were founded upon 1) the voluntariness of appellant's plea, 2) the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of guilt and an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used, and 3) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, appellate counsel then satisfactorily explained why the arguments lacked merit. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review not only confirmed the accuracy of appellate counsel's representations but also failed to reveal any error.

Accordingly, the motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Justice

Do not publish.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493(1967).