Vernon Wade Lewis, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VERNON WADE LEWIS, JR., )

) No. 08-05-00130-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) Criminal District Court #3

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Dallas County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# F-0473175-TJ)

)

O P I N I O N

Appellant Wade Vernon Lewis, Jr. was charged by indictment with injury to an elderly individual. Appellant signed a request for referral to a magistrate. Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense. The magistrate deferred findings of guilt to the sentencing proceeding. Following a hearing, the trial court found there was sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty finding for the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 6 years= imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court certified that is not a plea-bargain case and that Appellant has the right of appeal. Appellant=s motion for new trial was denied and he timely filed his notice of appeal.

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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (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. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the entire 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 counsel=s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

November 17, 2005

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

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

(Do Not Publish)