Eddie Earl Wright v. The State of TexasAppeal from 264th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00248-CR Eddie Earl Wright, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 67626, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eddie Earl Wright plead no contest to the offense of forgery by passing, and the trial court assessed punishment at twenty months in state jail with credit for time served. See Tex. Penal Code ยง 32.21. Wright s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Wright and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Wright did not file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.1 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous, and her motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Jeff Rose, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: August 15, 2013 Do Not Publish 1 Although he did not file a brief, Wright did file pro se motions seeking appointment of different appellate counsel, reduced sentence, and further time credit. None of these filings present any appellate issues alleging error in the trial court s judgment or pronounced sentence. 2