Jimmy Scott v. State

Opinion Issued April 20, 2006




 












     







In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas





NO. 01-05-00197-CR





JIMMY SCOTT, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 983908





MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Jimmy Scott, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault without an agreed recommendation from the State for punishment. The trial court assessed punishment at 13 years’ confinement. On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating that he had not found arguable points of error to raise on appeal. Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief asserting (1) that his guilty plea was involuntary and made without fully understanding the consequences of the plea, (2) that his waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession was unlawfully induced and made without fully understanding the consequences, and (3) that appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment and grant appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PROCEDURAL FACTS

          On January 13, 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. Appellant signed a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession,” which stipulated that the acts alleged in the indictment were true. In writing, appellant waived various rights and represented to the trial court that he was mentally competent to understand the nature of the charges against him, that he understood and accepted the plea after consulting with his attorney, that his plea was “freely, knowingly, and voluntarily” executed, that he was aware of the consequences of his plea, that he read and understood English, and that he had received effective and competent representation. Appellant also waived the right to a court reporter.

DISCUSSION

          Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief, stating that he has found no arguable points of error to raise on appeal and moving to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

          A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error or (2) that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

          We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

          We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

 


                                                             Sherry Radack

                                                             Chief Justice

 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Alcala.

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