Burrell, David Carroll v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 10, 2002
• Docket: 14-02-00525-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 10, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 10, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-02-00525-CR &

      14-02-00526-CR

DAVID CARROLL BURRELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos.  902,260 & 836,917

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance in cause number 836,917.  On May 1, 2000, the trial court deferred a finding a guilt and placed appellant on ten years deferred adjudication probation.  The trial court also required appellant to serve ten days in the Harris County Jail as a condition of probation.  On February 15, 2002, the State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging appellant violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication probation.  One of the State=s allegation was that appellant had possessed a controlled substance with intent to deliver; appellant was charged with that offense in cause number 902,260.  On May 1, 2002, appellant entered a plea of true in cause number 836,917 and pled guilty in cause number 902,260.  The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in both causes, sentences to run concurrently.  Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal in both cause numbers.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 10, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).