Gregory Bryan Crawford v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Hunt County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-02-00193-CR

______________________________

GREGORY BRYAN CRAWFORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR0101587

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charged by information with the offense of driving while intoxicated, Gregory Bryan Crawford pled not guilty. After hearing the evidence, however, a Hunt County jury found Crawford guilty as charged and the trial court assessed punishment at 180 days' confinement, suspended for fifteen months, and ordered the suspension of his driver's license and payment of an $800.00 fine and $265.25 in court costs.

In addition to filing a motion to withdraw, Crawford's appellate counsel has since filed a brief with this Court in which he concludes, after reviewing the record and relevant law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record, describes the issues reviewed, and concludes there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Counsel also provided Crawford copies of the brief, clerk's record, and reporter's record, advising him of his right to file a brief pro se; nevertheless, Crawford has neither filed a brief nor has he otherwise communicated with this Court.

Crawford's appellate counsel reviewed the record, noted trial counsel's motion to exclude certain evidence and objection to testimony by one of the witnesses for the prosecution, but concluded that, because the trial court did not rule on the motion and because neither a limiting instruction was requested nor a motion for mistrial made, nothing was preserved for appeal. Despite a motion for new trial, there is nothing in the record to show that any testimony was given or that a hearing was held; therefore, the motion was overruled by operation of law.

Having independently reviewed the record and the brief filed by Crawford's appellate counsel, we agree there are no arguable issues that would support an appeal in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 2, 2004

Date Decided: March 30, 2004

Do Not Publish