Opinion
No. 01-08-00145-CR
Opinion issued February 5, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1138962.
Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, KEYES, and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joshua London, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of evading arrest and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years in prison. The trial court certified on its "Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal" that appellant has no right of appeal because this is a plea-bargain case. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se response, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his court-appointed trial counsel. Appellant contends his trial counsel's counsel representation was deficient because counsel failed to inform appellant of a more favorable plea offer by the State. Our review of the record indicates that the trial court correctly certified that appellant has no right of appeal because this is a plea-bargained case. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (directing appellate courts to review record to determine whether trial court's certification is defective). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we neither conduct the review set forth in Anders nor make any "inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims" appellant may raise. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Terrell v. State, 245 S.W.3d 602, 605-06 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). We may only dismiss the appeal "without further action." See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680; Terrell, 245 S.W.3d at 604. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant the motion of appellant's counsel to withdraw.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (Vernon 2003).
The State waived its opportunity to file a reply to appellant's pro se response.
Appellant's counsel maintains a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and of the fact that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex.App.-Houston [1stDist.] 2000, no pet.).