Opinion issued March 13, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-01-01171-CR

01-01-01172-CR

01-01-01173-CR

____________

THOMAS MARTIN DELGADO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 868212, 805509, and 782438

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Thomas Martin Delgado, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in cause numbers 868212 and 782438, and to possession of marihuana in a useable quantity weighing 50 pounds or less but more than five pounds in cause number 805509. Appellant also pleaded true to a pleading in each indictment that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense. A presentence investigation report was prepared, and after hearing testimony, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 60 years in the aggravated robbery cases, and confinement for 20 years in the marihuana case. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

The brief states that a copy of the brief and the entire appellate record were delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised of his right to file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeals are wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgments.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. ⁽¹⁾ See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).