Guy William Harrell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 292nd District Court of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

No. 08-02-00274-CR

Appeal from the

292nd District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC# F01-99813-HV)

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of aggravated assault and a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. He was convicted, and the court assessed punishment at ten (10) years' deferred adjudication probation. The State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. At the hearing on that motion, Appellant pleaded not true. The court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 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 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

July 8, 2003

_______________________________________

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

Before Panel No. 2

Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

On this the [xxx] day of [xxxxx], 2003, came on to be heard April E. Smith's motion to withdraw. Having determined that counsel has met 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) and Tex. R. App. P. 6.5, the motion to withdraw is granted on the following terms and conditions:

Counsel is directed to (1) forward to Appellant this order and the court's opinion and judgment issued this same day in this cause; (2) notify Appellant of the availability of discretionary review; and (3) notify Appellant of the appellate deadlines applicable to discretionary review.