Opinion
No. 13-08-00545-CR
Opinion delivered and filed August 6, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices YAÑEZ and BENAVIDES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Craig Shely pleaded guilty in open court to possession of a controlled substance, enhanced by a habitual felony offender allegation. Tex. Health and Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (Vernon 2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2007). Shely was found guilty and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. Shely's appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which she reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.
I. Discussion
A. Compliance with Anders v. California
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that her review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance `arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that she has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel's motion to withdraw on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n. 3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)).