Elmer Noe Pineda v. State ( 2004 )

Opinion issued November 4, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-00112-CR

____________

ELMER NOE PINEDA, Appellant  

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 951146

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

               A jury found appellant, Elmer Noe Pineda, guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in an enhancement paragraph that he had a prior felony conviction. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 35 years. We affirm.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel’s 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 that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. 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).

               Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant 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 without merit.

               We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Do not publish.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