John James Silva v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion issued November 30, 2006         

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-00260-CR

____________

JOHN JAMES SILVA, Appellant  

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1024664

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

               Appellant, John James Silva, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated assault, and in accordance with his plea bargain agreement with the State the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of 10 years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate guilt to which the appellant pleaded not true. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, adjudicated guilt, and assessed punishment at confinement for 20 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 Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

Do not publish.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