Michael Rene Salazar v. State

Opinion issued January 5, 2006 









In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-05-00027-CR

____________


MICHAEL RENE SALAZAR, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 942359




 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant, Michael Rene Salazar, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery without an agreed punishment recommendation with the State. The trial court found appellant guilty, rescheduled the punishment hearing, and ordered a presentence investigation report. After a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 10 years. Appellant filed a motion for new trial that was denied. We affirm.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed 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 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 appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

               Any pending motions are denied as moot.

 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

Do not publish.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