Keith Thomas Jefferson v. State

Opinion issued June 28, 2007















In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NOS. 01-06-00262-CR

01-06-00263-CR

____________



KEITH THOMAS JEFFERSON, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1032278 and 1032279




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Keith Thomas Jefferson, was convicted by a jury of two separate state jail felony offenses of delivery of a controlled substance, and the trial court assessed punishment in each case at confinement for one year. 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 records 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 in each case. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeals are without merit.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court in cause numbers 1032278 and 1032279.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

We deny any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish.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

1.

Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).