Opinion
No. 10-03-00150-CR
Opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 263rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court # 913,515. Affirmed.
J.C. Carroll, Lambright Lambright, Houston, TX, for appellant/relator. Charles A. Rosenthal, Jr., Harris County District Attorney, Houston, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal concerns a conviction for felony theft. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Appellant appeals. We will affirm. Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has furnished a copy of the brief to Appellant, and counsel's motion to withdraw includes his letter to Appellant informing him of his right to review the record and to file a brief. See id. at 744; Ayala v. State, 633 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.); but see id. at 692 (court of appeals does not have authority to grant motion to withdraw by counsel appointed by trial court). Appellant has not filed a brief or other response. The State has waived the filing of a response. See Sowels at 694. Counsel's brief reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in some detail. The brief also states that counsel reviewed the clerk's and reporter's record for issues of arguable merit. Counsel's considerations included jurisdiction, jury selection, the charge, argument, representation by counsel, punishment, and sanity. Counsel concludes, "there are no arguable grounds on direct appeal." We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We determine that there are none. Appellant did not object to the indictment, and the indictment conferred jurisdiction in the district court by charging Appellant with a felony offense. See Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768, 770 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 271-72 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). The trial court sustained all of Appellant's objections, overruling only his motion for directed verdict. Appellant had no objection to the jury charges, and we perceive no egregiously harmful error in the charges. See Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim. App. 2004); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). The sentence is within the statutory range for the offense. See State v. Kersh, 127 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). The record does not show the reasons for Appellant's trial counsel's conduct, and we perceive no conduct that could not constitute legitimate trial strategy. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-505 (2003); Freeman v. State, 125 S.W.3d 505, 506-507 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592, 601 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 1660 (2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Appellant of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 694.