Opinion
No. 4-05-00033-CR
Delivered and Filed: June 21, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-CR-7981, Honorable Robert R. Barton, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
The Honorable Sid L. Harle is the presiding judge of the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Robert R. Barton, a visiting judge, presided over the proceedings in this case.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Adam Rodriguez Dominguez was convicted by a jury of possession of less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony. Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2003). Dominguez was sentenced to two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Dominguez's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Dominguez, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Dominguez filed a pro se brief making several assertions. Specifically, Dominguez asserts that: (1) the arresting officer testified falsely and made inconsistent statements at trial; (2) there was prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor knew of the false testimony; (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the false testimony; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief and Dominguez's pro se brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that arguably supports the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n. 1.