DOMINGO LOPEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County

NUMBER 13-01-681-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

  CORPUS CHRISTI  BEDINBURG

DOMINGO LOPEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Castillo, and Baird[1]

Opinion by Justice Baird

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant pled guilty to the charged offense and the State recommended punishment be assessed at fifteen years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division and a fine of $2,000.00. The trial judge found appellant=s plea was freely and voluntarily given, and followed the plea bargain agreement. Appellant subsequently retained appellate counsel, who filed a motion for new trial. That motion was overruled by operation of law. Counsel also gave timely notice of appeal stating the plea was not voluntary. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

I. Appellant=s Appeal

Counsel has filed an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that he has reviewed the statement of facts and the clerk=s record in this case, that he has researched the applicable statutory and decisional authority, and that he has found no reversible error and no arguable grounds of error for purposes of appeal. We find counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The State has filed a brief concurring with this assessment.

Additionally, counsel certifies he served a copy of his brief on appellant, and informed appellant of his right to review the court reporter=s and clerk=s records, and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.

We too have carefully reviewed the appellate record and have found no reversible error or any arguable point(s) of error for appeal. Moreover, as this is the appeal of a judgment following a plea bargain agreement accepted and followed by the trial judge, Rule 25.2(b)(3) is invoked. In the instant case, none of the conditions prescribed by that rule have been satisfied. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3)(A), (B), and (C); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

II. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant the attorney's motion to withdraw. We order appellant's attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

CHARLES F. BAIRD

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 23rd day of May, 2002.

[1]Former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. '74.003 (Vernon 1998).