Daniel Chavez Parra v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County

Opinion issued December 20, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-07-00382-CR

01-07-00383-CR

____________

DANIEL CHAVEZ PARRA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1053600 and 1055438

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Daniel Chavez Parra, pleaded guilty, without agreed recommendations as to punishment, to the offense of possession of a controlled substance in cause number 1053600 and to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance in cause number 1055438. After a presentence investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 20 years in each case . We affirm.

Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeals are without merit and are frivolous, and that the appeal must be affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel represents that he has served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate records 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. Having reviewed the records and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court in cause number 1053600 and in cause number 1055438.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1)

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Hanks, and Higley.

Do not publish.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

1. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).