Opinion
No. 14-06-00882-CR
Opinion delivered January 15, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 97CR1742.
Panel consists of Justices FROST, BROWN, and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 16, 2000, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child in exchange for deferred adjudication. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. The trial court found appellant guilty and on August 17, 2006, sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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). No pro se response was filed. On March 22, 2007, we affirmed the trial court's judgment. On May 18, 2007, the Clerk of this Court issued mandate in accordance with its judgment to the clerk of the court below, 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas. On June 11, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus, allowing appellant the opportunity to examine appellate counsel's Anders brief and to file an out-of-time pro se appellate brief. On August 14, 2008, we withdrew our opinion and ordered the mandate recalled. Further, we granted appellant's motion for extension of time to file his brief. Appellant's pro se brief was due September 19, 2008. No brief was filed. On October 30, 2008, appellant was ordered to file his pro se brief on or before December 1, 2008, or the Court would decide this appeal without appellant's brief. Appellant filed no response. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.