Opinion
No. 09-08-00457-CR
Submitted on September 29, 2009.
Opinion Delivered October 7, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH
On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 08-03-02859-CR.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Carl Gene Soley guilty of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (Vernon 2003). Stipulated prior convictions for driving while intoxicated made the offense a felony. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008). After finding Soley had two prior sequential felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Soley as an habitual criminal to twenty-five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2008). On appeal, Soley's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 28, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. The pro se response filed by the appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing witnesses who were not identified in pre-trial discovery to testify without objection and contends that Soley received ineffective assistance of counsel before and during the trial. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, we may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, or (2) that arguable grounds for the appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.