Russo Ladez Vinson v. State

Summarize Case

Related Cases

Opinion issued March 5, 2009























In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-08-00662-CR

____________



RUSSO LADEZ VINSON, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1147294



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Russo Ladez Vinson pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery (1) without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. 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. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel represents that he has 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. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (2) Attorney Ernest Davila must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley.

Do not publish.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

















1.

In a plea bargain case this Court reviews the record to determine whether it has jurisdiction and whether the trial court's certification regarding the defendant's right of appeal is correct. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 (a) (2). Here, the trial court filed an amended certification of right of appeal that states: I, judge of the trial court certify that this criminal case is not a plea bargain case and defendant has the right of appeal.

2.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).