Opinion
No. 12-08-00058-CR
Opinion delivered April 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Devon Constantine Henry appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Appellant also filed a brief pro se. We dismiss Appellant's appeal.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a state jail felony. The indictment also included a felony enhancement paragraph, and the judgment of that conviction contained an affirmative finding under section 3(g)(a)(2), article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. On November 28, 2007, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment, and also pleaded "true" to the felony enhancement paragraph. Appellant and his counsel signed an agreed punishment recommendation, an acknowledgment of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, an agreement to stipulate testimony, and a written stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that such stipulation constituted the evidence in the case. Further, Appellant acknowledged that he was guilty of an unadjudicated offense, tampering with evidence. However, Appellant did not waive his right to appeal. After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of the offense as set forth in the indictment, found the enhancement paragraph to be "true," considered his guilty plea to the unadjudicated offense, and assessed his punishment at seven years of imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. This appeal followed.Analysis pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of Appellant's brief, it is apparent that his counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant's pro se brief raises five issues. He argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by:1. failing to make timely and proper objections to preserve any error for appeal;
2. failing to preserve Appellant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with the videotape of the charged offense;
3. failing to challenge the unadjudicated offense that the trial court considered for punishment;
4. failing to file any motions for discovery regarding the reasonableness of the stop or the mitigating circumstances in his previous conviction;
5. inducing Appellant to plead guilty by suggesting that he would receive a bench trial and probation upon signing the plea documents and, because he wanted to go to trial, making his guilty plea involuntary without an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a plea.We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.