Luis G. Galvan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00925-CR
Luis G. GALVAN,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-0560
Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2003

AFFIRMED

Luis Galvan appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, Galvan entered a plea of no contest to the offense charged. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years imprisonment. The punishment assessed by the trial court did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.

Galvan's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Galvan, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

When Galvan appealed former Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) was in effect. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (repealed). Under former Rule 25.2(b)(3), where the appeal is from a judgment rendered on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. Galvan's notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3). We therefore do not have "power to address the merits of" any of the issues on which appeal is allowed under Rule 25.2(b)(3). Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 803 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Catherine Stone, Justice

Do Not Publish