Opinion
No. 01-04-00068-CR
Opinion issued August 26, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 954379.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK, and Justices KEYES and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Johnny Clarence Kaiser, was indicted for the offense of aggravated robbery. The case was first assigned to a court having juvenile jurisdiction because appellant was 16 years of age when the crime was committed. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.07(b) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004). The juvenile court waived jurisdiction and the case was assigned to a criminal district court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.02(a)(2)(A) (Vernon 2002). Appellant pleaded guilty to the indictment without a plea bargain agreement. After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 20 years. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's 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 that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. 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). Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant 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 without merit. We therefore 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 has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him 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).