Abdiel Guerrero Miranda v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 18, 2002
• Docket: 11-02-00031-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Abdiel Guerrero Miranda

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00031-CR B Appeal from Harris County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of the aggravated sexual assault of his stepson.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 10 years.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously reviews the record and the applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.  In his brief, counsel details the indictment, pretrial proceedings, the admonishments given appellant, appellant=s judicial confession, the proceedings at trial, and the effectiveness of trial counsel.  Counsel states that no reversible error is present at these stages of the trial and that trial counsel afforded appellant reasonably effective assistance.  Following the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), counsel presents one  arguable issue on appeal. 

Counsel contends that the trial court erred in overruling appellant=s motion for new trial.  In his motion for new trial, appellant contended that his due process rights were violated and that he received a heavier sentence because his wife, the victim=s mother, was unable to testify that both she and the victim wanted appellant to be placed on community supervision.  Appellant contended that the Children=s Protective Services took his wife=s child from her in the jury room prior to the plea negotiations and that a ANameless Deputy@ harassed his wife and tried to take her cell phone.  Appellant stated in his motion for new trial that his defense counsel had to get the bailiff to eject the ANameless Deputy,@ and that his wife became so upset that she was unable to testify.  The record does not reflect that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.  Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex.Cr.App.2001); State v. Gonzalez, 855 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); Appleman v. State, 531 S.W.2d 806 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).  The issue is overruled.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, supra.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record.  We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 18, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.