Steven Schiefelbein a/k/a Stephen Schiefelbein a/k/a Stephan Schiefelbein v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00567-CR

Steven SCHIEFELBEIN,

a/k/a Stephen Schiefelbein a/k/a Stephan Schiefelbein

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-6490

Honorable Robert R. Barton, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2004

AFFIRMED

A jury found defendant, Steven Schiefelbein, guilty of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon, and assessed punishment at sixty years' confinement.

Defendant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed a brief in which he makes four complaints. First, defendant expresses his "disappointment" with this court's treatment of him because this court has repeatedly refused his request for the record in a previous trial, which he contends he needs for the purpose of filing a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. An indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a free record of prior proceedings for the purpose of preparing a post-conviction habeas corpus application. In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998) (orig proceeding). Defendant's second complaint also pertains to his previous trial in which he asserts the trial court reprimanded him and threatened him with contempt when he (as opposed to his defense attorney) voiced his objection to the testimony of a State witness. Defendant also states he personally did not raise other objections because he felt intimidated by the trial judge. We do not address the merits of these complaints because an appeal from that trial is not before this court. Third, defendant contends he was "railroaded" by the trial court, the District Attorney's Office, and his appointed trial counsel, and his attempts to dismiss appointed counsel were "thwarted" by the trial court. We construe these contentions as a complaint that defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. However, defendant has waived this complaint because he points to no specific action or inaction on trial counsel's part that rendered his assistance ineffective. Finally, defendant asserts his sixty-year confinement is "extremely harsh" and constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" because only he was injured and only he lost property. This complaint has no merit because defendant was convicted of a first degree felony, the jury found the allegations in the enhancement count (voluntary manslaughter) true, and defendant's sixty-year sentence was within the statutory range. Furthermore, this complaint was waived because defendant did not raise it before the trial court during the punishment phase of trial or in a motion for new trial. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

We have reviewed the record and appellate counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH