Timothy Darnell Raven v. State

Opinion issued May 31, 2007  

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-06-00501-CR

01-06-00502-CR

01-06-00503-CR

____________

TIMOTHY DARNELL RAVEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1033000, 1033001, 1033228

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Appellant, Timothy Darnell Raven, pleaded guilty to three separate offenses of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed punishment in each case at confinement for 28 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 she served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate records 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 records in each case and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the records, and agree that the appeals are without merit. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court in case numbers 13300, 133001, and 103228.

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.).

We deny any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish.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

1. Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him 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).