From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Nov 30, 2006
NO. 01-06-00351-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2006)

Opinion

NO. 01-06-00351-CR.

November 30, 2006. Do Not Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 922294.

Panel consists of Justices TAFT, KEYES, and HANKS.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant, Rene Martinez, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of controlled substance fraud without an agreement with the State as to punishment. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of three years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate guilt to which the appellant pleaded true. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State's motion to be true, adjudicated guilt, and assessed punishment at confinement for two 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.). Any pending motions are denied as moot.

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).


Summaries of

Martinez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Nov 30, 2006
NO. 01-06-00351-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2006)
Case details for

Martinez v. State

Case Details

Full title:RENE MARTINEZ, Appellant v. The STATE Of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Nov 30, 2006

Citations

NO. 01-06-00351-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2006)