eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-11

William Jackson Jr. v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued November 17, 2005










    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The  


    First District of Texas

    ____________


    NO. 01-05-00258-CR

    ____________


    WILLIAM JACKSON, JR., Appellant  


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court

    Brazoria County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 45753



     

    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

                   Appellant, William Jackson, Jr., pleaded not guilty to the felony offense of

     driving while intoxicated enhanced to a second degree felony. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. The court found appellant guilty and reset the case for a sentencing hearing. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for seven years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. 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.).

                   Any pending motions are denied as moot.

    PER CURIAM

    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland

    Do not publish.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