Willie Ware v. State

Opinion issued July 17, 2003





















In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NOS. 01-02-01323-CR

01-02-01324-CR

____________



WILLIE WARE, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 884021 and 884020




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Willie Ware, pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual assault without a plea bargain agreement. After the preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment in each case at confinement for 10 years. 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, along with a copy of the appellate record. Counsel also advised appellant 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 appeals are wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgments.

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 Alcala and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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).