Ratliff
v.
State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, TylerJul 30, 2004
No. 12-03-00114-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2004)

No. 12-03-00114-CR

Opinion delivered July 30, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DeVASTO, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Curtis Ratliff ("Appellant") appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated, for which he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Appellant also filed a brief pro se. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of driving while intoxicated, a third-degree felony. The indictment included two felony enhancement paragraphs. On March 10, 2003, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the indictment. At the time of Appellant's guilty plea, the State agreed to abandon one of its enhancement paragraphs, reducing Appellant's range of punishment to a second-degree felony. Further, Appellant pleaded true to both jurisdictional paragraphs and to the remaining enhancement paragraph in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed an acknowledgment of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, an agreement to stipulate testimony, and a written stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that all elements pleaded in the indictment were true. However, Appellant did not waive his right to appeal. On March 13, the trial court assessed Appellant's punishment at twenty years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. After a detailed recitation of the facts, including cites to the reporter's record, counsel performed an analysis of the seven grounds for appeal alleged by Appellant in his pro se notice of appeal, determined that none of these allegations are supported by the record, and concluded that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Appellant's pro se brief raises the same seven issues, which include ineffective assistance of counsel and incompetent counsel. Further, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing void prior convictions to be used for enhancements, by allowing prior charges without convictions to be used in open court, by denying his right to a speedy trial, and by violating his constitutional rights. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.