TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 97-731-K277, HONORABLE JOHN R. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant Anjela Smith pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 1994). After hearing evidence, the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for thirty years.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief.
Appellant first complains of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Her plea of guilty to the jury admitted all facts necessary to establish guilt.
Next, appellant brings forward her pretrial motions to suppress physical evidence, to suppress written and oral statements, to dismiss the indictment, for discovery, for identification outside the presence of the jury, and to reduce pretrial bail. The motions to suppress and for identification were carried to trial and never ruled on by the court. The court also did not rule on the discovery motion, relying on the State's open file policy. The motion to reduce bail was withdrawn at the pretrial hearing and is now moot. Any error in the overruling of the motion to dismiss the indictment was waived by the guilty plea. See Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
Finally, the pro se brief repeats certain arguments made in trial counsel's brief in support of his objection to the introduction of certain extraneous conduct evidence. From our review of the record, this evidence was not admitted at trial.
We have reviewed the record and the matters raised in the pro se brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: March 25, 1999
Do Not Publish