Opinion
No. 12-10-00112-CR
Opinion delivered January 5, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court Smith County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lee Ross Potter appeals his conviction for robbery. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant also filed a brief pro se. We dismiss Appellant's appeal.BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of robbery, a second degree felony. The indictment also included a felony enhancement paragraph. On March 22, 2010, Appellant entered an "open" plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment, and also pleaded "true" to the felony enhancement. Appellant and his counsel signed an agreed punishment recommendation, an acknowledgment of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, an agreement to stipulate testimony, and a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that all allegations pleaded in the indictment were true and correct and judicially confessed to the offense alleged in the indictment. However, Appellant did not waive his right to appeal. After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of robbery, found the enhancement paragraph to be "true," and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years of imprisonment, court costs, and restitution. This appeal followed.ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of Appellant's brief, it is apparent that his counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant's pro se brief raises eight issues. He argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance as follows:1. coercing and threatening Appellant to sign an "open" plea of guilty by promising him that he would receive probation;
2. failing to have Appellant evaluated by a qualified psychiatrist to determine whether he was competent to enter a guilty plea because he was taking psychoactive medications; and
3. failing to accept the trial court's offer of a continuance in order to address an alleged error in the presentence investigation.Further, he argues that
1. his guilty plea was involuntary and coerced because his trial counsel threatened him and erroneously promised him that he would receive probation;
2. a conflict of interest existed because the trial judge, trial counsel, and the prosecutor were customers at the bank Appellant allegedly robbed;
3. the presentence investigation was erroneous because it included a previous conviction that was overturned on appeal at the time of his punishment hearing; and
4. he was erroneously indicted for the offense of robbery because the evidence supported the lesser offense of theft.We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.