Opinion
No. 01-05-00779-CR
Opinion issued August 21, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 40,638A.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK, and JUSTICES Taft and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Victor Randolph Turner, pleaded guilty, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, to the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Appellant also pleaded true to two prior state jail enhancements. Punishment was tried to the jury, which assessed punishment at 5 years' confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court certified appellant's right to appeal the punishment only. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Counsel also informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response, which appellant has done. In his pro se response, appellant contends that the his constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated. Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We overrule all pending motions.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.07 (Vernon 2003).
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 842 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).