Opinion
No. 01-03-00438-CR
Opinion issued January 8, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 946266.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK, and Justices KEYES and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Raymond Charles Everhart, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. The jury assessed punishment at confinement in State jail for two 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. 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).