Ervin, Ray Allen v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 292nd District Court of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAY ALLEN ERVIN, )

) No. 08-02-00166-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 292nd District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Dallas County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# F-0126831-WV)

)

O P I N I O N

Ray Allen Ervin appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty. The trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment in accordance with the plea bargain at imprisonment for a term of 21 years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377, 87 S. Ct. 2094 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel=s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has been filed.

The record reflects that Appellant was admonished of the consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant made a judicial confession admitting his guilt. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

November 7, 2002

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 2

Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)