
Opinion issued July 24, 2003












In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________

NOS. 01-02-00899-CR
           01-02-00900-CR
____________

TIMOTHY MANNING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 893726 and 892140



 
MEMORANDUM  OPINION
               Appellant, Timothy Manning, pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated
robbery.  After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court
assessed punishment at confinement for 40 years in each 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 was delivered to appellant, whom counsel
advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and 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 of the trial court.
               We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
 See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d
770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Hanks.
Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
