Edward Brandon Garcia v. State ( 2003 )

Opinion issued August 14, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-01187-CR

____________

EDWARD BRANDON GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 810419

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Appellant, Edward Brandon Garcia, pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion to adjudicate guilt after having reached a plea agreement with the State. The trial court found appellant guilty of aggravated assault and, following the plea agreement, sentenced appellant to confinement for three 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). Appellant received a copy of the appellate record from the Harris County District Clerk's office on December 10, 2002. More than 30 days have passed since appellant's pro se brief was due, but appellant has not filed one. 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.

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 Justices Hedges, Nuchia, and Keyes.

Do not publish.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).