Demorrow J. Hood v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case
Anders.wpd NO. 12-02-00033-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

DEMORROW J. HOOD,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION (1)

Appellant Demorrow Hood appeals his conviction for the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. We affirm.

In March of 2000, Appellant entered an open plea of "guilty" to possession of a controlled substance. At that time, Appellant executed a written stipulation of evidence, a written acknowledgment of admonishments, and written waivers of trial by jury, motion for new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, and appeal. By order of April 5, 2000, the trial court found that the evidence supported Appellant's guilt but deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication probation for a period of ten years. Appellant did not appeal at that time.

In October of 2001, the State filed a first amended motion to proceed to final adjudication and revoke Appellant's probation alleging several violations of the terms and conditions of probation. Based upon Appellant's plea of true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate, the trial court found the allegations to be true. Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated Appellant's guilt, revoked Appellant's probation, and assessed punishment at eleven years of imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.00.

Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief does not advance any arguable issues, but does contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable issues to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Counsel served a copy of his brief on Appellant, and though Appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief by counsel and by this court, he has not done so.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.

We affirm the trial court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

 

Opinion delivered July 17, in the Year of our Lord 2002.

Panel consisted of Gohmert, Jr., C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.