Sanders, Gordon v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 19, 2004
• Docket: 14-04-00051-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 19, 2004

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 19, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00051-CR

GORDON SANDERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02CR0279

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On July 31, 2002, Appellant entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance weighing more than one gram but less than four grams.  He was placed on five years= deferred adjudication probation.   The trial court revoked his deferred adjudication probation and, on May 27, 2003, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a written notice of appeal. 

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit as to any issue Aunrelated@ to appellant=s conviction.  See Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  Counsel also notes that this court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court=s decision to adjudicate guilt.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), 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 no motion to review the record or pro se response has been filed.

We agree the appeal of issues unrelated to conviction is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Additionally, we do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal related to the conviction.   Vidaurri, 49 S.W.3d at 884.  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 Memorandum Opinion filed August 19, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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