Jose Jorge Castillo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00358-CR

Jose Jorge CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-6426

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2004

AFFIRMED

A jury convicted defendant, Jose Jorge Castillo, of driving while intoxicated and assessed punishment at six years' confinement.

Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing one arguable issue, but concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders and she has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not done so. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

The arguable issue is that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the verdict based on defendant's contention that he swerved within his lane of traffic because his vehicle had loose steering and based on his version of what the jury should have seen in a videotape of his driving before he was stopped and what occurred after the stop. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We must defer to the factfinder, and may find the evidence factually insufficient only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice. See Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences and is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to give their testimony. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH