Opinion
Nos. 01-07-00892-CR, 01-07-00893-CR
Opinion issued December 11, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 1004608 and 1095514.
Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, HANKS, and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Quintin Woods, pleaded guilty, in cause number 1004608, to the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for a period of three years and assessed a fine of $100. Appellant was subsequently charged and indicted for a new law violation, in cause number 1095514, for the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver cocaine, and filed a motion to suppress. The State filed a motion to adjudicate, in cause number 1004608, that was based in part on the subsequent law violation of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver cocaine. The trial court consolidated the hearings for the state's motion to revoke probation in cause number 1004608 and appellant's motion to suppress evidence in cause number 1095514. After hearing evidence, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress, and the trial court granted the State's motion to adjudicate guilt after finding that appellant had violated community supervision by committing the law violations of evading detention and possession of cocaine. The trial court found appellant guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, in cause number 1004608, and sentenced appellant to confinement for 10 years. Following the hearing, appellant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of possession of a controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced appellant, in cause number 1095514, to confinement for two years. Appellant gave notice of appeal in each case. We affirm. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the records present no reversible error, that the appeals are without merit and are frivolous, and that the appeals must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel represents that she has 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). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
Quintin Woods is also known as Quintin T. Woods and Quintin Tobias Woods.
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal andthat he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).