Alexander, Anduze v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 13, 2003
• Docket: 14-02-01084-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed February 13, 2003

Affirmed and Opinion filed February 13, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-01084-CR

ANDUZE ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 94-09619

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment, to the offense of recklessly causing serious bodily injury to a child by omission.  On June 14, 1995, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for ten years and imposed additional conditions of probation.  On July 1, 2002, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant=s guilt.  In accordance with an agreed recommendation as to punishment, appellant entered a plea of true, stipulated to the evidence for revocation, and signed a written waiver of his right to appeal.  On September 6, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for  five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.   The court denied permission to appeal.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the 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).  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed February 13, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).