eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2007-04

Brian Lynell McGinnis v. State ( 2007 )


Menu:

  •   



    Opinion issued April 5, 2007























    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The

    First District of Texas



    _______________



    NOS. 01-06-00610-CR

    01-06-00611-CR

    01-06-00612-CR

    _______________



    BRIAN LYNELL MCGINNIS, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

    On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause Nos. 1056822, 1056823, and 1046983



    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

    Appellant, Brian Lynell McGinnis, pleaded guilty to three separate felony offenses of aggravated robbery, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment with the State, and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement in each case for 20 years. We affirm.

    Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appeal in each case 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 for each case 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 in each case is wholly frivolous.

    We affirm the judgments of the trial court. (1)  

    Any pending motions are denied as moot.

    PER CURIAM

    Panel consists of Justices Taft, Alcala, and Hanks.

    Do not publish.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

    1. Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeals 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).