Eric Duane Sanders v. State ( 1993 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-92-560-CR



ERIC DUANE SANDERS,

APPELLANT

vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 41,605, HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BLACK, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to the offense of robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 1989). In accord with a plea bargain agreement, the district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing one contention which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

In his point of error, appellant contends that the district court erred by refusing to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. The record reflects that after appellant's plea was accepted and the finding of guilt made, the cause was continued to a later date to permit the preparation of a presentence report. One month later, when the cause was called for assessment of punishment, appellant made his request to withdraw his plea. Under the circumstances presented, the withdrawal of the guilty plea was within the discretion of the court. DeVary v. State, 615 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). No abuse of that discretion is shown. The point of error is overruled.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: March 17, 1993

[Do Not Publish]