IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
APRIL 30, 2004
______________________________
GERARDO OJEDA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;
NO. CR-02H-103; HONORABLE H. BRYAN POFF, JR., JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellant Gerardo Ojeda filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on April 8, 2004, averring that he no longer wishes to prosecute his appeal. The Motion to Dismiss is signed by both appellant and his attorney.
Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed
the appeal at appellant's personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
encing. However, counsel has satisfactorily explained why each argument lacked merit.
Through his pro se brief, appellant also raised the issue of whether he received effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney purportedly 1) failed to do any pretrial investigation, 2) failed to seek out and interview potential witnesses, 3) failed to file a pretrial motion to take depositions of the victims, and 4) promised him that if the trial court made a finding that placing him on community supervision was in the best interest of the victims, he would automatically be granted probation. The record, however, is devoid of any evidence supporting any of the claims. So, since claims of ineffective assistance must be firmly founded in the record, McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), and appellant's is not, we find the allegation lacking in merit.
Lastly, we conducted our own review of the record to uncover any arguable error, as required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and found none. Accordingly, the motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).