Musterman, John Eric v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00541-CR

____________

JOHN ERIC MUSTERMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 885,893

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

Appellant entered a guilty plea to the third degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, on August 24, 2001, the trial court placed appellant on community supervision for four years and assessed a fine of $500.00. On April 19, 2002, the State moved to revoke appellant=s community supervision. After a hearing, on May 23, 2002, the trial court found appellant had violated a condition of his probation, revoked his probation, and assessed punishment at confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and a fine of $500.00. Appellant filed a written notice of appeal.

Appellant was represented by retained counsel on appeal. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw from his representation of appellant in which he asserted that after a thorough review of the record, he found no error to urge as a ground of reversal and that this appeal is frivolous.[1] Counsel furnished a copy of the motion to appellant and advised him of his right to object. Counsel=s motion complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 and this court=s opinion in Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Appellant filed no objection. Accordingly, the court granted the motion.

Counsel also filed a motion for an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief on his own behalf or to retain other counsel. The court granted a thirty-day extension of time and noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. The court notified appellant of the rulings on both motions. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other response.

Appellant has not informed this court of his intent to proceed on appeal pro se or to retain another attorney. Because appellant has not responded, we reviewed the record in its entirety. See Nguyen, 11 S.W.3d at 380; Pena v. State, 932 S.W.2d 31, 32 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 1995, no pet.). We agree with former appellate counsel that the appeal lacks merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Nguyen, 11 S.W.3d at 379-80.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Frost.

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

[1] The procedural safeguards provided in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) are not applicable to an appellant who is represented by a retained attorney. Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).