11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Earl Lee
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-02-00099-CR B Appeal from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary of a building and assessed his punishment at confinement for 15 months in a state jail facility. A plea bargain agreement was not reached. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously examines the entire record and the applicable law. In detail, counsel reviews the indictment, the pretrial proceedings, the admonishments and appellant=s plea of guilty, the evidence presented, the trial court=s judgment and sentence, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. Counsel concludes that the record reflects no arguable issues to be presented on appeal.
Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeal is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
January 23, 2003
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.