Wells, Julius Jesus v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 177th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 6, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00326-CR

NO. 14-04-00327-CR

____________

JULIUS JESUS WELLS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 900,805 & 900,806

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the offenses of robbery and theft of a motor vehicle. As to the offense of robbery, the trial court entered an order in cause number 900,805 on March 20, 2002, deferring adjudication and placing appellant on six years of community supervision. As to the offense of theft, the trial court sentenced appellant on March 20, 2002, to two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for three years.

The State subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt in cause number 900,805, the robbery charge. On March 31, 2004, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of robbery and sentenced appellant on the robbery charge to twenty years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. As to the offense of theft, in cause number 900,806, the State also moved to revoke community supervision. Appellant pled true to the stipulations of evidence without an agreed recommendation as to sentencing. On March 31, 2004, the trial court revoked community supervision and sentenced appellant to two years= confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in each cause in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Each brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), 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).

Copies of counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate records and file pro se responses. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed in either case.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel=s briefs and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the briefs would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 6, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).