Opinion issued July 24, 2003
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NOS. 01-02-00899-CR
01-02-00900-CR
____________
TIMOTHY MANNING, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 893726 and 892140
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Timothy Manning, pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery. After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 40 years in each case. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and 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.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).