DocketNumber： 01-05-00040-CR
Filed Date： 1/5/2006
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/3/2015
Opinion issued January 5, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NOS. 01-05-00040-CR
01-05-00041-CR
____________
PAUL VALDEZ, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 149th Judicial District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 46112 and 46113
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Paul Valdez, Jr., pleaded guilty to two separate charges of felony delivery of a controlled substance, without an agreed recommendation with the State as to punishment. In each case appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court assessed punishment in each case at confinement for 20 years. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that these appeals are 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.).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).