Diaz, Oscar Ernesto v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2003
• Docket: 01-02-00180-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 20, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-02-00180-CR

---

OSCAR ERNESTO DIAZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 847122

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Oscar Ernesto Diaz, pled guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery and was assessed punishment at 18 years’ confinement in prison and a $5,000 fine. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 1994). We affirm.

Anders Brief

          Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. As a prerequisite for presenting this motion, counsel has submitted a brief stating his opinion that a thorough and complete analysis of the record revealed the appeal is without merit. Counsel’s brief identifies and provides argument supporting a number of potential points of error, but concludes that none of these presented arguable points of reversible error.

          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 stating why there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel advised appellant of his evaluation of this appeal and informed appellant of his right to file his own pro se brief. Appellant timely filed a pro se brief.

           In three issues, appellant contends that the jury charge and evidence are insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated robbery because he was a party to the offense rather than the primary actor. Appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery before a jury and the jury assessed his punishment. Appellant’s three issues allege only that error occurred at the guilt stage of trial.

          Appellant may not avail himself of a factual or legal sufficiency challenge because he pled guilty to the offense. See Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792 Crim. App. 1988). Additionally, because appellant pled guilty, he has waived all non-jurisdictional defects. Sellers v. State, 961 S.W.2d 35, 352 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).

          Appellant does not complain that any alleged error invalidated his guilty plea. See Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Likewise, he does not complain of a jurisdictional defect. See Sellers, 961 S.W.2d at 352.

          Because appellant’s three issues affect guilt issues only and because he pled guilty to the offense, he has waived all errors regarding the finding of guilt.

          We overrule appellant’s three issues.

                                                         Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                             Elsa Alcala

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Jennings, and Alcala.

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