Opinion
No. 05-02-01836-CR
Opinion Filed December 11, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-34392-WS. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and RICHTER.
OPINION
In this case, Daniel Mendez appeals his conviction for indecency with a child under the age of seventeen years. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years' confinement. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant filed a pro se response in which he admits his guilt. Appellant does not allege any trial court error, but requests the Court reduce his sentence in light of his poor health. We affirm the trial court's judgment. During appellant's arraignment, counsel told the trial court that appellant was "very ill." During the punishment hearing, however, the defense did not call any witnesses to testify about appellant's health. Appellant's voluntary statement to police, admitted into evidence as a State's exhibit, shows appellant was sixty-six years old. Appellant did not object to the sentence at the time it was assessed or in a motion for new trial. Generally, sentences assessed within the authorized statutory range will not be disturbed on appeal. See Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.). Appellant's sentence lies within the punishment range the Legislature has established for his offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.33, 21.11(d) (Vernon 2003). Therefore, we conclude appellant has not raised an arguable issue in this appeal. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response. We conclude the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.