Jamaine I. Idehen v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Opinion issued July 12, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-00025-CR

____________

JAMAINE IDEHEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1033088

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jamaine Idehen, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation with the State as to punishment, to the felony offense of aggravated robbery. After a pre-sentence investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 12 years. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

Counsel represents that she served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is without merit.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

We deny any pending motions as moot.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1. Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).