eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2006-05

Peter John Schuster v. State ( 2006 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued May 25, 2005  










    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The  

    First District of Texas

    __________


    NOS. 01-05-00650-CR

             01-05-00651-CR

             01-05-00652-CR

    ___________


    PETER JOHN SCHUSTER, Appellant  


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 208th District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause Nos. 1002296, 1002297, and 1002298



     

    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

              Appellant, Peter John Schuster, pleaded guilty to three separate felony offense of possession of child pornography without an agreed recommendation as to punishment with the State, and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for two years in each case. We affirm.

              Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal in each case 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 records 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 in each case.

              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.).

              Any pending motions are denied as moot.

    PER CURIAM

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

    Do not publish.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