Opinion
No. 04-04-00217-CR
Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-CR-4290, Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found defendant, Mark Lopez, guilty of assault causing bodily injury to a family member, and assessed punishment at seventy-five years' confinement. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defendant's court-appointed appellate attorney illustrated why this appeal is meritless. So too did he negate the viability of the issues he thought potentially arguable. Counsel reviewed the pretrial proceedings and motions, jury selection, opening statements, the testimony of Police Officer Blackden and the complainant, the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury charge, closing arguments, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. Counsel concluded this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders and he has provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Defendant has not done so. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In addition to reading the Anders brief, we also reviewed the record, sua sponte, as required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Our review of those items disclosed no error committed by the trial court or warranting reversal of its judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n. 1.