Nelson Mauricio Salazar v. State

Opinion issued August 5, 2004












In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NOS. 01-04-00111-CR

          01-04-00124-CR

____________


NELSON MAURICIO SALAZAR, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 948772 and 800070




 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               On September 30, 2003, appellant, Nelson Mauricio Salazar, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver heroin, weighing at least 400 grams, in cause number 948772. On the same date, he pleaded true to the State’s motion to revoke community supervision in cause number 800070. There was no plea agreement between appellant and the State in either case. After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at 17 years’ confinement and a $400 fine in cause number 948772, and two years’ confinement in state jail and a fine of $500 in cause number 800070. We affirm.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that these appeals are without merit. Counsel’s 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 that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. 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 represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant 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 without merit.

               We therefore 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 Nuchia, Alcala, and Higley.

Do not publish.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