Daniel Eugene Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-04-00029-CR

______________________________

DANIEL E. SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 03-0316X

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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 30, 2003, Daniel E. Smith waived a jury trial and pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After admonishing Smith regarding the punishment range applicable in this case (up to two years' confinement in a state jail facility), the trial court accepted Smith's guilty plea. There was no negotiated plea agreement regarding punishment in this case. The trial court then heard evidence and argument regarding punishment, ultimately sentencing Smith to confinement in a state jail facility for a period of two years. Smith then appealed the trial court's judgment.

On July 12, 2004, Smith's appellate counsel filed an Anders // brief in which he professionally discussed the record, described the issues reviewed, and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal. As required by Anders, he also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Smith a copy of the appellate brief and informed Smith of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record.

We informed Smith at that time his response, if any, was due by August 11, 2004. As of this date, we have not received a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the record and the brief filed by counsel in this appeal, and we agree there are no arguable issues that would support an appeal in this case. Smith's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. The trial court assessed punishment within the range provided for by statute. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 12.35 (Vernon 2003). The record indicates Smith was satisfied with the performance of his court-appointed counsel. Though Smith had a history of mental illness, the record affirmatively supports trial counsel's assessment that Smith was competent to stand trial, as Smith's answers to the trial court's questions indicate both an ability to understand the proceedings against him and an ability to assist trial counsel in his defense. In short, the record supports counsel's assessment there were no errors in the court below that would require reversal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 22, 2004

Date Decided: September 23, 2004

Do Not Publish