Opinion issued August 29, 2002
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-01-01196-CR
RANSOM MADISON ESSICK, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 880843
O P I N I O N
Appellant, Ransom Essick, Jr., pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment, to burglary with intent to commit theft and true to two enhancement paragraphs alleging two prior convictions for felony theft. The trial court assessed punishment at six years confinement.
Counsel filed a brief stating his opinion that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the minimum 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 he had a right to file a pro se response. Thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We hold there are no arguable grounds for appeal. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 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 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 Taft and Jennings.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.