Opinion issued September 6, 2007
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-06-01080-CR
ROBERT E. ALEXANDER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1070549
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. The trial court accepted appellant's plea of guilty, which was made without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. After a hearing on the return of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief. (1)
BACKGROUND
Appellant was arrested and charged with burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. He signed a "Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession" and pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation by the State. The trial court questioned appellant regarding the voluntariness of the guilty plea and admonished him regarding his rights. Appellant initialed sections of a form entitled "Admonishments" and signed the form. The trial court accepted appellant's plea and gave further admonishments on the record. At a later date, the trial court conducted a punishment hearing and considered a presentence investigation report. After hearing the testimony of appellant and arguments of counsel, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for five years. The trial court certified that appellant had the right of appeal.
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. (2) 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. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.
A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response 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 case 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. (3)
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Bland.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
1. 2. Counsel's Anders brief contains incorrect information regarding appellant's
indictment. In setting out the indictment, counsel states facts regarding, and quotes from,
what appears to be the indictment of a different defendant, who was accused of capital
murder. However, in the preceding paragraph of the preliminary statement in the brief,
counsel correctly states the offense in this case, and counsel's later discussion of appellant's
indictment and of other portions of the record accurately reflect the record before us.
Therefore, we consider the insertion of the incorrect information to be immaterial.
3. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal,
send appellant a copy of this opinion and judgment, and notify appellant that he may, on his
own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 48.4;
see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex parte Wilson, 956
S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex.
App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).