Julius Houston v. State ( 2006 )

                              NUMBER 13-05-059-CR             

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

JULIUS HOUSTON,                                                                         Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Julius Houston, appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 12.32, 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003).  Without the benefit of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery.  The court found appellant guilty of the crime as charged and assessed punishment at 20 years= imprisonment.  Appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court.  We affirm.

I.  Anders Brief

Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court, in which she states that she has diligently reviewed the record and concludes that appellant has no non‑frivolous grounds for appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel certifies that she has served a copy of her brief on appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief.  We conclude counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.  On June 9, 2005, January 1, 2006, February 10, 2006 and March 10, 2006, this Court granted appellant=s motions for extension of time to file a pro se brief.  The last deadline to file a pro se brief has passed and no pro se brief has been filed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

II.  Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous.  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have reviewed the entire record and counsel=s brief and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.  See id.; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

III.  Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  We grant her motion to withdraw.  We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

_______________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 8th day of June, 2006.