Terry Lynn Sirmans v. State of Texas--Appeal from 411th District Court of Polk County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-01-201 CR
____________________
TERRY LYNN SIRMANS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15,575
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terry Lynn Sirmans appeals his conviction on one count of aggravated sexual assault on a child and one count of sexual assault on a child. After a jury returned a guilty verdict, Sirmans filed a notice of appeal, but subsequently entered into a plea bargain agreement with the State. Pursuant to that agreement, Sirmans received concurrent twenty-five and ten year terms of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and executed a written waiver of his right to appeal that was approved by defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court. Months later, Sirmans requested and received new counsel to prosecute his appeal.

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 9, 2002, Sirmans was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. Sirmans did not file a pro se brief, but did file an objection to the Anders brief. We now address the issues raised by the appellant on his own behalf. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

Sirmans complains that appellate counsel did not consult him regarding his awareness of the consequences of waiving his right to appeal, and suggests that he desired to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Naturally, the extent and content of the communication between Sirmans and appellate counsel before the Anders brief was prepared is not reflected in the appellate record. Sirmans concedes that he waived his right to appeal, and no evidence in the record controverts Sirmans's in-court assertion of voluntariness. That waiver is effective, and precludes the exercise of our jurisdiction to review this case. Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App.2000).

 

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on October 18, 2002

Opinion Delivered October 23, 2002

Do Not Publish

 

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.