Nos. 01-04-00451-CR, 01-04-00452-CR
Opinion issued October 28, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 248th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 956055 and 956099.
Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, HANKS, and HIGLEY.
Appellant, Jose Martin Rodriguez, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver at least 400 grams of cocaine in cause number 956055 and to attempted escape while under arrest in cause number 956099. After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 17 years and a $5000 fine in the controlled substance case and six months in state jail in the attempted escape case. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeals are wholly frivolous. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).