Waire, Jr., Prentise Lee v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2002
• Docket: 01-01-00928-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 20, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-01-00927-CR

01-01-00928-CR

PRENTISE LEE WAIRE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 857095 and 857096

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Prentise Lee Waire, Jr., was a juvenile certified to be tried as an adult. He was charged in two indictments with aggravated sexual assault of a child and murder which grew out of a single incident. He pled guilty to each allegation before the trial court without an agreed recommendation. Sentencing was deferred pending the completion of a pre-sentence investigation report. After the punishment hearing, the trial court assessed two concurrent 60-year prison terms.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that, after a thorough and complete analysis of the entire record, in her opinion the appeals are without merit. The well-reasoned 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 Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Counsel certifies that the brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised that he had a right to file a pro se response within 30 days. The 30 days have passed and appellant has not filed a response.

We have carefully read and reviewed the entire record in this matter and we concur with appellate counsel's assessment that there are no arguable grounds of error that could be presented on appeal.

We affirm the judgments.

Appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from any further representation in this matter. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). While we grant this request, we likewise remind counsel of her duty to notify appellant of the result of these appeals and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Schneider, and Justices Hedges and Nuchia.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.