Opinion issued December 5, 2002
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-01-01159-CR
____________
RODERICK NIKITA HENDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 855649
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roderick Nikita Henderson, was convicted by a jury of sexual assault. The jury also found the allegations contained in two enhancement paragraphs to be true, and assessed punishment at 50 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).
Counsel sent a copy of the brief and the appellate record to appellant, and advised him of his right to 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 Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Radack.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
1.