Stoneham, Albert Lee v. State

Opinion issued November 27, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-01-00732-CR

____________

ALBERT LEE STONEHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 278th District Court

Grimes County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14,225

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION   Appellant, Albert Lee Stoneham, was convicted by a jury of murder. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel, David S. Barron, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous. The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced; it therefore meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). See also 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 certifies that the brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgment.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. ⁽¹⁾ See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Radack.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

1.

Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 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).