Tommy L. Hatchett v. State ( 2003 )

Opinion issued August 21, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-03-00099-CR

____________

TOMMY L. HATCHETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 917813

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Appellant, Tommy L. Hatchett, pleaded guilty to intoxication assault and true to allegations that he had a prior conviction for a felony offense. After the preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 15 years. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

All pending motions are denied.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. ⁽¹⁾ See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.

Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).