Jeremias Timothy Whitfield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County

Opinion to issue December 7, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-05-00298-CR

____________

JEREMIAS TIMOTHY WHITFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 938639

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jeremias Whitfield, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. In accordance with a plea bargain agreement the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on seven years' deferred adjudication.

A motion to adjudicate guilt was filed by the State. On March 4, 2005, a hearing was held on the motion to adjudicate. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations contained in the State's motion to adjudicate.

The trial court found the allegations to be true, and adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 30 years. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

Counsel represents that she 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.

After this court receives an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed attorney, who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we review the record to make an independent determination of that issue. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 511 (Tex. Crim. Ap. 1991). Initially, we review the record to determine if the record substantiates the specific grounds for appeal identified in the certification of right to appeal completed by the trial court. Next, we review the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous and whether there are arguable grounds for appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record and agree that the appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1. Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).