NO. 07-03-0178-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 10, 2004

______________________________ OTHA LEE CRAIG, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCK LEY COUNTY; NO. 02-12 -5406; HO NORABLE HAROLD PHELAN, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Otha Lee Craig appeals from his conviction for driving w hile intoxicated. We affirm. As a pretrial matter, appellant filed a Special P lea of Double Jeopardy which alleg ed thatappellant had been placed in former jeopardy for the driving whileintoxicated charge by: (1) the Texas Department of License’s suspension of his driver’s li cense, (2) the United-2-

States District Court Northern Division’s revocation, after a hearing, of his supervised release, and (3) the State’s dismiss al of a mi sdemeanor indictment before re-indicting appellant

for a felony. The trial court held a pretrial hearing concerning appellant’s sp ecial plea at which the trial court denied the plea on the basis that, even if all the facts alleged in the plea were assumed true, the plea did not presenta legally sufficient claim of former jeopardy. Following the trial court’s denial of the special plea and pursuant to aplea bargain, appellant

pled gu ilty

to the felony charge of driving while intox icated. The trial court honored the plea bargain and sentenc ed appellant to incarceration in the Texas D epartment of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for five years and fined appellant $500. Appellant

was admonished, both orally and in writing, by the trial court. He si gned a guilty p lea m emorandum, which included written admonishments, stipulation of evidence, and jury w aiver, and pled guilty on the record while in open co urt. The trial court stated, during appella nt’ s p lea, that it would permit appellant to appeal the denial of his Special Plea of Double Jeopardy and the court has certified appellant’s right to appeal the denial of this wri tten plea . T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Appellant has timely filed a notice of appeal with this court and has been app ointed appellate counsel. Counsel for appellan t has fi led a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and a Brief in Support thereof. In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that , in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 4 93 (1967), the record has been diligently reviewed and that, in the opi nion of coun sel, the-3-

record reflects no revers ible erro r or gr ounds upon which a meritorious appeal can be predicated. Counsel thus concludes t h at the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has di scussed why, under

the controlling authorities, there is no argua bly rever sible error in the

trial co urt proceedings or judgme nt. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2 d 807, 81 3 (Tex.C rim.App. 1 978). Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a copy of the Andersbrief and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel have been f o rwarded to appellant, and that counsel has appropriatelyadvised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a pro se response. We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whethe r there are any a rguable grounds f or appea l. Se e Penson v

. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (198 8); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The record reveals no s uch g rounds. We agree with appellate counsel that the appeal i s withou t merit. Accordingly, counsel ’s Motion to Withdr aw is gra nted. T he j udgment of the trial court is affirmed. Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not pu blish.