Opinion
No. 05-03-01776-CR
Opinion Filed May 6, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-73648-Ntn. Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kristen Louise Howk appeals her conviction for prostitution with three prior prostitution convictions. After accepting appellant's open guilty plea, the trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement in state jail and a $750 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Although we advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, she did not file a pro se response. In conducting our independent review of the record, we discovered that the copy of appellant's written judicial confession reproduced in both the reporter's record and the clerk's record does not bear appellant's signature. It appears the area of the document designated for the signatures of appellant and counsel was obscured during copying. This record defect, however, does not give rise to an arguable issue for appeal. The record also shows appellant judicially confessed to the offense when she orally affirmed to the trial court that she was pleading guilty because she was guilty and for no other reason. See Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 352 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (op. on reh'g). Furthermore, appellant signed a "plea agreement" containing a second judicial confession that she committed the offense of "Prost."on the date of the offense "exactly as alleged in the charging instrument." Although the plea agreement was not formally admitted into evidence, it was on file and approved by the trial court and thus, also provided evidentiary support for appellant's guilty plea. See Rexford v. State, 818 S.W.2d 494, 495-96 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), pet. ref'd per curiam, 823 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.