Eddie Caesar Correa v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Crim Dist Ct 3 of Dallas Co of Dallas County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDDIE CAESAR CORREA, )

) No. 08-05-00134-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) Criminal District Court #3

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Dallas County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# F-0356078-PJ)

)

O P I N I O N

Appellant Eddie Caesar Correa appeals his conviction for manslaughter. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of not guilty. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the offense. After pleading true to the enhancement paragraph, Appellant was sentenced to 40 years= confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court certified that this 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. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Appellant=s court appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he 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). Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw, has served a copy of the brief to Appellant, and has informed Appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se brief on January 10, 2006.

We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record, counsel=s brief, and the pro se 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. We affirm the trial court=s judgment.

March 9, 2006

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

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

(Do Not Publish)