Christian Okey Onwuegbusi v. State ( 2009 )

Opinion issued November 12, 2009

  In The  

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

---

  NO. 01-08-00409-CR

____________  

CHRISTIAN OKEY ONWUEGBUSI, Appellant  

V.  

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee  

---

  On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1082352  

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Christian Okey Onwuegbusi, pleaded no contest to the offense of theft in an amount between $100,000 and $200,000. After a sentencing hearing, the court assessed his punishment at confinement for fifteen years and a fine of $10,000.           Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

          When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could “conceivably persuade the court.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In our review, we consider appellant’s pro se response, if any, to his counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).           Here, appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in two issues that the his plea of no contest was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Having reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).

                                                                        Terry Jennings

                                                                        Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.  

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