Opinion
No. 03-08-00422-CR
Filed: March 18, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appealed from the District Court of Travis County, 299th Judicial District, No. D-1-DC-08-202445, Honorable Charles F. Baird, Judge Presiding. Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice JONES, Justices PURYEAR and HENSON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, appellant Wendell Deloney was adjudged guilty of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.07 (West 2003). The court assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at six years' imprisonment. Appellant was arrested after he was seen driving a pickup truck that had been reported stolen three weeks earlier. The testimony reflects that the owner of the truck had allowed appellant to borrow it for short errands in the past, but on this occasion appellant had taken the truck without permission. In his own testimony, appellant admitted taking the truck. He said that he had intended to use the truck for only a few days and then return it. He added, "I knew it was wrong." Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction erroneously states that appellant pleaded guilty. The judgment is modified to state that appellant's plea was not guilty. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.