Goodman, Lonzo Richard v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 12, 2003
• Docket: 14-02-00312-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 12, 2003

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 12, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00312-CR

LONZO RICHARD GOODMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No.  34,127

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant Lonzo Richard Goodman was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to sixty years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice B Institutional Division. 

Appellant's counsel is retained.  She filed a brief in which, after reviewing the record, she concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, purportedly under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).  The Anders procedural safeguards are not applicable, however, to an appellant who is represented by a retained attorney.  See Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 

Appellant=s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, which this Court granted, after assuring her compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5.  This Court ordered the Anders brief stricken and gave appellant thirty days to obtain new counsel to file a brief on his behalf or file a pro se brief.  More than forty-five days have elapsed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief or had an attorney file a new brief on his behalf. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and agree with appellant=s former appellate attorney that the appeal lacks merit.  See Nguyen, 11 S.W. 3d at 379-80.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 12, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Frost.

Do not publish C Tex.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