Pablo Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NO. 3-92-135-CR
PABLO MARTINEZ,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 0914532, HONORABLE BOB JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The opinion and judgment issued herein by this Court on January 13, 1993, are withdrawn, and this opinion is filed in lieu of the earlier one.

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.03 (West Supp. 1992). The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for life.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.

On January 13, this Court issued an opinion and judgment affirming the judgment of conviction. Counsel for appellant filed a motion for rehearing informing the Court that appellant wished to file a pro se brief. The motion for rehearing was granted and appellant was notified that his pro se brief was due on or before March 23, 1993. Neither a pro se brief nor a motion for extension of time for filing has been received.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, the judgment inaccurately states that appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of guilty. Therefore, the judgment is reformed to reflect that appellant entered a plea of not guilty; a jury of twelve persons was selected and sworn; after hearing evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty of aggravated robbery as alleged in the indictment; appellant requested that the jury assess punishment; appellant entered a plea of true to both enhancement paragraphs; and after hearing evidence the jury returned a verdict finding that appellant had been previously convicted of two felony offenses as alleged in the indictment and assessing punishment at imprisonment for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Tex. R. App. P. 80(b).

As reformed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith]

Reformed and, As Reformed, Affirmed

Filed: April 7, 1993

[Do Not Publish]