COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
JOSE ANTONIO DIAZ, JR., '
No. 08-11-00041-CR
Appellant, '
Appeal from the
v. '
78th Judicial District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, '
of Wichita County, Texas
'
Appellee.
' (TC#48,262-B)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of
Driving While Intoxicated, Repetition. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. ' 49.04(a)(West Supp. 2012).
He was found guilty, and the court assessed punishment enhanced under TEX.PENAL CODE ANN.
' 49.09(b)(2)(West Supp. 2012) at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 6 years, and no fine to serve concurrently with
48,261-B. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094,
18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why,
in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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).
In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the appellant
in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal.
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after
informing the court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw includes a copy of the correspondence to Appellant regarding his
right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Further, counsel avers a copy of the
brief filed in this cause has been forwarded to Appellant’s last known address. Appellant has
filed a pro se brief.
The record reflects that Appellant was admonished of the consequences of his plea
pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2012), and Appellant made a
judicial confession admitting his guilt.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A discussion of the
contentions advanced in the appellant’s pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the
state.
The judgment is affirmed.
February 28, 2013
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
2