Opinion
No. 11-02-00310-CR
June 18, 2003. Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Appeal from Dallas County.
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.
Opinion
The trial court convicted appellant, upon his open guilty plea, of delivery of cocaine. Appellant also entered a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for 25 years. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that he has determined that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no arguable issues which would support a point of error. To support his conclusion, counsel reviews the indictment, the record, the plea of guilty, the judicial confession, the admonishments given by the trial court, the determinations that appellant was mentally competent and that his plea was freely and voluntarily entered, the validity of the sentence, and the effectiveness of trial counsel's representation. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.