Opinion

Brown, III Eugene v. State

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Jan 9, 2003
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.1%

The opinion

Opinion issued January 9, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00393-CR

____________

EUGENE BROWN, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 855243

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Eugene Brown, III, pleaded guilty to murder without a plea

bargain agreement, and the court sentenced him to 30 years' confinement. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

and a brief concluding that the appeal is 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 appeal is wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgment.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State , 35 S.W.3d

770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Nuchia and Jennings.

Do not publish.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

1.

Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 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).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.