Opinion
No. 01-03-01115-CR
Opinion issued August 5, 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 DO NOT PUBLISH.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. 946813.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Kenneth Wayne Newman, guilty of the offense of aggravated assault. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in two paragraphs that he had two prior felony convictions, and the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for 35 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 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). On July 23, 2004, appellant filed a pro se second motion for extension of time to file his pro se brief. The motion is denied as untimely. 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.).
On March 17, 2004, counsel filed a motion for extension of time for the filing of appellant's pro se brief. We granted the motion on March 23, 2004, ordering the pro se brief due on May 7, 2004. We sent a copy of our order to appellant. Appellant did not file his own motion for extension of time until July 23, 2004, more than two months after his brief was due and just five days before the submission date. Appellant had adequate time to file his pro se brief, or a timely motion for extension of time, before this case was submitted to the Court, but did not do so.
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).