Frederick Lee Coleman v. State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00516-CR
Frederick Lee COLEMAN,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-0770
Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 18, 2001

AFFIRMED

The appellant, Frederick Coleman, challenges his conviction for murder in this appeal. Coleman pled "no contest" to committing the offense of murder, pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to a sentence of not less than twenty years but not greater than forty years, and an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. The trial judge accepted Coleman's plea, adjudicated him guilty, made an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon, and sentenced Coleman to forty years in prison.

Coleman filed a pro se notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Coleman. The attorney studied the record and determined that no meritorious issues existed for appeal. The attorney then prepared an Anders brief stating that he identified no arguable issues for an appeal. See Anders v. State, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Concluding that the appeal was frivolous and without merit, the attorney stated that he advised Coleman of the results of his review, provided Coleman with a copy of his brief, advised Coleman of his right to file a pro se brief, and asked to withdraw from representation. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

In response, Coleman filed a pro se brief. Therein, Coleman complained about the effectiveness of his trial attorney, and the completeness of the reporter's record. Specifically, he complained that his attorney did not apply for probation in his case, and that the reporter's record did not contain a report from his probation officer. We have no jurisdiction to consider these complaints because Coleman pled no-contest pursuant to a plea agreement and because the trial judge sentenced Coleman in accordance with the agreement. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 25.3(b)(3).

After reviewing the records and the briefs, we agree with Coleman's attorney that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant the motion to withdraw filed by Coleman's attorney.

Alma L. L pez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH