James Demarcus O'Neal v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00371-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES DEMARCUS O NEAL, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

James Demarcus O Neal appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. His appellate counsel has 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).1 We affirm.

Background

A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for the felony offense of aggravated robbery. Appellant pleaded guilty in exchange for an agreement that the State recommend a sentence of twenty years of imprisonment. Thereafter, Appellant sought a new court appointed attorney and requested that the trial court allow him to withdraw his previously entered plea of guilty. The trial court held a hearing and denied Appellant s request to withdraw his plea. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and assessed punishment at twenty years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case. In compliance with Anders and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.

We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered July 31, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief. The State waived the filing of a brief.