Robert Haddix, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County

NO. 12-03-00265-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT HADDIX, JR.,   ' APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

APPELLANT

V.   ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   ' NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Haddix, Jr. (AAppellant@) appeals his conviction for two counts of attempted theft, for which he was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine on each count. Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainousv. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant also filed a brief pro se. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with two counts of the offense of attempted theft. On July 7, 2003, his case was tried to a jury, and Appellant was found guilty on both counts on July 8. Appellant elected to have the jury assess his punishment and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and was assessed a $10,000.00 fine on each count. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on July 16.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant=s pro se brief raises nine issues, each claiming that the trial court committed fundamental error. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered May 12, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)