Kidd, Cedric Lionel v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Crim Dist Ct 2 of Dallas Co of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CEDRIC LIONEL KIDD,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-01-00412-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC# F-0151611-VI)

O P I N I O N

In one of two companion cases, Cedric Lionel Kidd was indicted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, a first-degree felony under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. '481.112(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The State presented a conviction for theft and a conviction for burglary of a habitation for enhancement purposes. Kidd pleaded not guilty to the offense but pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs.

The State later gave notice of its intent to submit a deadly weapon question to the jury.

The jury found Kidd guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not find that he had used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. A twenty-five year sentence was imposed by the trial court judge. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed his motion to withdraw, together with a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).

A copy of counsel=s motion, the brief, and the appellate record have been delivered to appellant, and appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

September 5, 2002

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)