Fernandez, Aurelio M. v. State

Opinion issued March 27, 2003

























In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-00-01338-CR

____________



AURELIO M. FERNANDEZ, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 778992




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Aurelio Fernandez, was indicted for capital murder. He pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of aggravated robbery without a plea agreement. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 45 years. 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). No pro se brief has been filed. We granted two extensions of time for filing the pro se brief. We denied the most recent motion that was filed on February 27, 2003. 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 from the case. (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 Hanks.

Do not publish.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).