Opinion
Nos. 05-02-01146-CR, 05-02-01147-CR, 05-02-01148-CR.
Opinion Filed March 9, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-00980-UT, F02-47128-VT, F02-71608-QT. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, LANG, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jose Crecencio Nolasco appeals his convictions for two offenses of delivery of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams and one offense of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in an amount over 400 grams. Appellant entered open guilty pleas to the offenses and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph in each of the delivery cases. A jury then assessed punishment in the delivery cases at twenty-five years confinement and a $5000 fine in one case and thirty-five years confinement and a $10,000 fine in the other case. In the possession with intent to deliver case, the jury assessed punishment at forty years confinement and a $50,000 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he 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). 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.