NO. 07-03-0064-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 12, 2004

______________________________ ADRIAN GUSTAVO LONA, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 86683 ; HONORAB LE CHAR LES D. CARVER, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
Adrian Gustavo L ona, app ellant, was indic ted fo r agg ravated sexual assault. He appeal s his conviction and sentence pursuant to a plea of guilty to the lesser included charge of

sexual assault. We affirm

. On October

21, 2002 ap pellant entered aplea of guilty to a chargeof sexu al assau lt. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea without the benefit of a plea agreement with the State. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on December 2, 2002, received evidence,1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed 2d 493, 498 (196 7). -2- and sentenced appella nt to 20 years confinement in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal Justice I nstitutio nal Divi sion. Appella te counsel has filed a motion to withdr aw, along w ith an Anders 1 brief. In support of his motion to withdraw, he certifies that he has diligently

reviewed the record and applicable law, has found no reversible error s, f undamental or oth erwise, u pon whic h to base a meritorious appeal, and has concluded the appeal is frivolous. Appellant’s coun sel attached to his b rief a letter, sent to appellant with a copy of counsel’ s brief and a copy of the reporter’s record, informing appellant of his right to obtain an d review the record and to raise any point or matter he wishes this court to rev iew . Appellant’s counsel also filed
a motio n requesting appellant be given an ex tension to allow sufficient time for hi m t o obtain and review the record and file a prose brief with the court. The motion was granted and thiscourt not ified ap pellant, but he h as not fi led a res ponse. The written plea admonishments signed by appella nt include the statement that his trial counsel provided effective and competent legal representation. Appellant told the trial court when he entered his plea that he was satisfied wi th his counsel’s representation of him. The record also includes a form document signed by appellant following sentencing that includes a general allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The brief filed byappellant’s appellate counsel inclu des a discussion of his examination of the record for anyevidence of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, pu rsu an t to the requirements of2 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (198 4).
3 Appellant’s sentencing hearing was he ld on D ecember 2 , 2002. A mendments to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2, effective January 1 , 2003, replaced subdivision 25.2(b)(3 ) with cu rrent subd ivision 25.2 (a)( 2). -3- Strickland

v. Washington. 2 Counsel reportsthat the record is devoid of evidence that would meet either of the two prongs of the Strickland test. Appellant’s counsel also provides an analysis of the procedural facts of the case and the applica ble law, with references to the record a nd citations to legal authority relied upon i n making his determination that the appeal is witho ut merit. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 ( Tex.Cri m.App. 19 78). Appella te counsel notes that the admonishment given appell ant by the trial c our t regarding his right to appeal was incorrect in that it imposed terms more restrictive than the lawrequires. The court admonish ed appellan t as if he were a person entering a pleaof guilty pursuantto a plea bargain. Appellant was admonished that he would have to obtain consentfrom the trial court to appeal his plea of guilty and to invoke the jurisdiction of this court he woul d have to

comply with the requirements of TexasRule of Appella te Proced ure 25.2(b)(3) in his notice of appeal. 3 Appell ant, h owever, was no t enterin g a pleaof guilt y pursuantto a plea bargain. Even though appellant was incorrectly advised regarding his rightto appeal, he timely filed a notice of appeal sufficient to perfect his appeal. No issue is raise d by the i mproper a dmonishm ent.
This court has independently reviewed the record and legal authority, including that cited by counsel in his brief. Stafford v . State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cri m.App. 19 91);
see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed 2 d 300 (1988 ). The recor d-4-

indicates that appellant was timely indicted and provi ded representation by legal counsel, signed admissi ons of gu ilt and w ritten ad monishme nts, and was orally examined and admonished by the trial judge before the guilty plea was accepted. The sentence imposed bythe court is within the range of punishment provide d for by statute. We find no arguable grounds f

or appea l.
Counsel’s Motion to

Withdraw

is there fore gran ted and t he judgme nt of the trial cou rt is affirme d.

James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.