From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sailer v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Mar 20, 2003
No. 01-02-00385-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 20, 2003)

Opinion

No. 01-02-00385-CR.

Opinion Issued March 20, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

Appeal from the 183rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 701657.

Before Justices HEDGES, JENNINGS, and ALCALA.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant, Craig Michael Sailer, filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment adjudicating his guilt in cause number 701657. At the adjudication hearing, appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion to adjudicate, the trial court found him guilty of theft of property of the value of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, and, in accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for six years. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim. App. 1997).


Summaries of

Sailer v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Mar 20, 2003
No. 01-02-00385-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 20, 2003)
Case details for

Sailer v. State

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG MICHAEL SAILER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Mar 20, 2003

Citations

No. 01-02-00385-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 20, 2003)