Opinion
No. 10-02-185-CR
August 27, 2003 DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 359th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Court # 01-12-07724-CR.
Before Justice Vance, Justice Gray, and Senior Justice Hill (Sitting by Assignment)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rafter Vincent Irving, III pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain to aggravated robbery. After a presentence investigation and a brief punishment hearing, the court sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. Irving's appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 498 (1967). Counsel notified Irving that he had filed an Anders brief, sent him a copy of the brief and the record, and informed him that he had the right to file a pro se brief or other response. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). The Clerk of this Court also notified Irving that he could file a brief or response, but he has not done so. Irving's counsel does not identify "potential sources of error" in his brief. E.g., Taulung v. State, 979 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, no pet.). Rather, counsel reviews the propriety of the indictment, the plea proceedings, and the punishment hearing, then concludes that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. This Court has conducted an independent review of the record and has reached the same conclusion. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 691-92. The indictment vested the court with jurisdiction. The trial court made no adverse rulings on Irving's pretrial motions. The clerk's record reflects no "issues which might arguably support an appeal." Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 692 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Irving of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 694. Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 27, 2003
The court did not rule on Irving's pretrial discovery motion. The court granted Irving's habeas application for a bond reduction and his motion for a separate trial from that of his jointly-indicted codefendant.