Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00081-CR, 05-04-00082-CR, 05-04-00083-CR, 05-04-00084-CR, 05-04-00085-CR, 05-04-00086-CR, 05-04-00087-CR
Opinion Filed May 19, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-35842-VR, F02-35843-KR, F02-35844-KR, F02-35845-KR, F03-35267-LR, F03-35268-LR, F03-35269-LR. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Calvin Allen appeals his convictions for three offenses of delivery of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, three offenses of delivery of cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and one offense of possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. After accepting appellant's open guilty pleas to all of the offenses and his pleas of true to enhancement paragraphs on all of the delivery offenses, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement for the deliveries of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, five years confinement for the deliveries of one gram or more but less than four grams, and two years confinement in a state jail facility for possession. In addition, a $2500 fine was assessed with one of the fifteen-year sentences. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Although not presented as grounds for a meritorious appeal, counsel notes in her brief that appellant's back-time credit is incorrect on four of the judgments. Counsel states that our intervention is not required to correct the credits because she has filed a motion in the trial court. Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgments.