No. 01-07-00108-CR
Opinion issued February 14, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 174th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1090823.
Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, HANKS, and HIGLEY.
SAM NUCHIA, Justice.
Appellant, Joe Luis Gutierrez, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment, to the felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, namely, a straight razor. After a hearing on the return of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief.
Background
During an argument while intoxicated, appellant cut the complainant, Justin Bell, with a straight razor. Appellant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He signed a "Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession" and pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation by the State. The trial court questioned appellant regarding the voluntariness of the guilty plea and admonished him regarding his rights. Appellant initialed sections of a form entitled "Admonishments" and signed the form. The trial court accepted appellant's plea and gave further admonishments on the record. At a later date, the trial court conducted a punishment hearing and considered a presentence investigation report. After hearing the testimony of appellant and arguments of counsel, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for five years. The trial court certified that appellant had the right of appeal. Discussion
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief, stating that he has found no arguable points of error to raise on appeal and moving to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. Without citation to the record, appellant states that he wished to change his guilty plea after entering it, that he did not understand the presentence investigation paperwork he signed after entering his plea of guilty, and that he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea by copying verbatim a form "motion to withdraw" that he found in the law library. He also states that the facts argued by the State at sentencing, which were included in the presentence investigation report, were inaccurate. A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error or (2) that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Id. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.