Small, Albert Pennington v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 21, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-02-00527-CR;

14-02-00528-CR;

14-02-00630-CR;

14-02-00631-CR

____________

ALBERT PENNINGTON SMALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 879,465; 879,466; 879,467 & 879,468

O P I N I O N

Appellant entered pleas of no contest to two counts of aggravated kidnaping, and to the offenses of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of a child. On April 24, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant in trial court causes 879,465; 879,466 and 879,467 to confinement for 30 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice(TDCJ-ID). On May 31, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant in trial court cause number 879,468 to confinement for 20 years in TDCJ-ID. Appellant filed timely general notices of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed briefs in each cause in which he concludes that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). On October 24, 2002, the court received appellant=s pro se response, citing to various authorities and claiming a reasonable belief the child complainant was 18 years old or older. Appellant also states his belief that counsel was ineffective. Appellant provides no argument for any of these assertions.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s briefs, and the pro se response and we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the briefs would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 21, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Fowler.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).