Charlie Franklin Reaves, Jr. v. State

Opinion issued July 1, 2004












In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-03-00668-CR

____________


CHARLIE FRANKLIN REAVES, JR., Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 9425409




 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               A jury found appellant, Charlie Franklin Reaves, Jr., guilty of aggravated sexual assault, assessed punishment at confinement for seven years, and recommended that appellant be placed on community supervision. On October 31, 1995, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for seven years, suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for seven years. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision to which appellant entered a plea of not true. After a hearing on June 4, 2003, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to confinement for seven years.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is 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 she served a copy of the brief and the appellate record on appellant. 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 appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment 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Do not publish.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).