Enrique Pompa, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 283rd District Court of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ENRIQUE POMPA, JR., )

) No. 08-02-00419-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 283rd District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Dallas County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# F99-20454-T)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

September 6, 2001, Appellant Enrique Pompa, Jr., waived trial by jury and pursuant to a negotiated plea, entered a plea of guilty before the court to the lesser offense of aggravated possession of methamphetamine. He was convicted, and the court assessed punishment of confinement for 10 years, probated for 10 years, and a fine of $3,000. No appeal was taken. Thereafter on May 28, 2002, the State filed a Second Amended Motion to Revoke Probation to which Appellant pled not true after the court granted the State=s motion to strike two of the paragraphs. Following the hearing, the court found one of the allegations to be true, granted the State=s motion, and set punishment at 5 years= confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that there is no arguable issue that counsel can raise in good faith. 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 and the appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal has no good faith grounds to be advanced. 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.

DON WITTIG, Senior Justice

August 21, 2003

Before Panel No. 5

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Wittig, JJ.

(Wittig, J., sitting by assignment)

(Do Not Publish)