Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 8, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-03-00586-CR
____________
DONTRELL ENELL JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 909,063
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted appellant of the offense of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at confinement for nineteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On May 5, 2003, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury=s verdict. Appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal.
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The record was provided to appellant. Appellant has filed a response to counsel=s Anders brief in which he generally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the seating of an alternate juror.
We agree with counsel=s conclusion that the record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant=s conviction. The State=s witnesses testified to each element of the offense. Appellant presented an alibi defense and presented several witnesses. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their testimony. Westbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). It is the jury=s exclusive province to reconcile conflicts in the evidence. Id. The proof of guilt in this case was not so weak that it undermined confidence in the jury=s rejection of appellant=s alibi defense. See id. The verdict is not Aso contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.@ See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
During trial, it was discovered that a juror had conducted internet research about some of the legal terms used at trial. At defense counsel=s request and over objection by the State, the juror was excused and an alternate seated. Because the juror was excused at appellant=s request, no reversible error is presented. See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding party requesting ruling is precluded from claiming error requiring reversal resulted from ruling). In addition, there is no evidence that the alternate juror changed or affected the verdict.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find no reversible error in the record. Further discussion of the brief or appellant=s response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 8, 2004.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).