Michael Alan Stover v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00756-CR

Michael Alan STOVER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-2594

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2007

AFFIRMED

Following the denial of his motion for a speedy trial, defendant, Michael Alan Stover, pled no contest to aggravated sexual assault of a child, pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court assessed punishment at eight years' confinement and a $1,500 fine.

Defendant'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). Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed a pro se brief asserting the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error or (2) that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any arguable grounds have been briefed by new counsel). We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record, and we conclude there are no arguable grounds for appeal, there is no reversible error, and the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. 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.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH