Beal, Delbert v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 5, 2002
• Docket: 01-01-01052-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 5, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-01-01052-CR

DELBERT BEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 33,975A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Delbert Beal, pleaded guilty without a plea bargain agreement to delivery of cocaine in a drug-free zone. Appellant pleaded "not true" to the allegations contained in two enhancement paragraphs. At the conclusion of the punishment hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed punishment at 25 years' confinement. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The 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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. 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 certifies that the brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised 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). Thirty 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 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 Taft, Alcala, and Price. ⁽²⁾

Do not publish.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).

2.

The Honorable Frank C. Price, former Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.