Opinion
No. 13-07-323-CR
Opinion delivered and filed March 13, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Justices YAÑEZ, RODRIGUEZ, and VELA. Memorandum Opinion by Justice RODRIGUEZ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Brad Wilson, appeals from his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (Vernon 2003). The trial court denied appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress any and all evidence seized, and the State filed a notice of intent to enhance appellant's punishment with two prior felony convictions. After appellant entered a plea of not guilty and waived a jury trial, the trial court found him guilty of the charged offense. Increasing his punishment from a state jail to a second degree felony due to the enhancement, the trial court sentenced appellant to four years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Corrections. Concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.I. Compliance with Anders v. California Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at 744-45; see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record including, among other things, a review of the transcript of the motion to suppress, jurisdictional issues, sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and the effectiveness of counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel has informed this Court that he has reviewed the appellate record and concludes that there is no significant issue presented in the record of this case upon which a ground of error could be predicated. Counsel served a copy of his brief on appellant and informed him that, in his view, the appeal is wholly without merit, but that appellant has a right to review the record and to file a pro se brief if he so desires. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. Counsel has also indicated that he has forwarded the clerk's record, the reporter's record, and the supplemental clerk's record to appellant. More than thirty days have passed, and no pro se brief has been filed and no motion for extension of time to file such brief has been received.
We note two inconsistencies in the record. First, the judgment of conviction states that appellant pleaded guilty to the offense. Second, the amended notice of appeal indicates that appellant was found guilty by a jury. It is clear from other portions of the record and from appellant's briefing that appellant pleaded not guilty and that his case was tried to the bench. Because these errors are not germane to the disposition of this appeal, we need not address them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.