Opinion issued October 29, 2009
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-08-00412-CR
VIRGILIO PEREZ-VASQUEZ, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1123523
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Virgilio Perez-Vasquez, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder and was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement. Perez-Vasquez’s counsel has provided us with a brief and motion to withdraw from representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Background
One evening in March 2007, Jabes Lopez was visiting Perez-Vasquez at his apartment. After several hours of drinking, the men began an argument that ended when Perez-Vasquez stabbed Lopez in the chest. Lopez collapsed to the floor and died.
Perez-Vasquez left Lopez’s body to go out to eat with his brother. When Perez-Vasquez returned, Lopez’s body was still lying on the floor of his apartment. He and his brother did not move the body or report the incident to the police, but they did attempt to clean the bloodstains from the apartment.
The next day, police found Lopez’s body and apprehended Perez-Vasquez. The State charged him with murder. The trial court appointed defense counsel, and Perez-Vasquez decided to enter a guilty plea without an agreed recommendation as to punishment.
Before Perez-Vasquez entered his plea, he acknowledged in writing that the trial court admonished him, among other things, that a first-degree felony conviction would result in “a term of life or any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years” of incarceration, as well as a possible fine of up to $10,000. Before the trial court accepted Perez-Vasquez’s plea, he also acknowledged that he
· was mentally competent and understood the nature of the charge against him;
· understood the trial court’s admonishments;
· waived the right to have the trial court orally admonish him;
· waived the right to have a court reporter record his plea;
· understood the consequences of waiving his constitutional rights and agreeing to stipulate and confess to guilt;
· understood that the trial court was required to order the preparation of a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and declined to participate in preparing it;
· understood the consequences of his plea and requested that the trial court accept it;
· freely, knowingly, and voluntarily executed the above statements and waivers in open court with the consent and approval of his attorney; and
· read or had explained to him in Spanish, and before his confession, the admonishments, statements, and waivers, as well as the written waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession, and fully consulted with his attorney before entering his plea.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed the PSI and heard Perez-Vasquez’s written statement, translated and read aloud by defense counsel. Perez-Vasquez requested compassion in his sentencing, explaining that he had not been involved in any prior crimes and that his family counted on him for support. In his closing argument, defense counsel explained Perez-Vasquez’s version of the circumstances that led to Lopez’s death and requested leniency on the basis that Perez-Vasquez had acted out of fear and in self-defense when he stabbed Lopez. The trial court also heard testimony from Lopez’s brother about the impact his older brother’s death has had on their family. The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objections to the State’s questions eliciting the brother’s opinion concerning the sentence Perez-Vasquez should receive.
The trial court affirmatively found that Perez-Vasquez used a deadly weapon in committing the murder and imposed a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. The trial court certified Perez-Vasquez’s right to appeal and appointed appellate counsel.
Discussion
Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396. The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel represents that he has served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant 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 thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.[1] Attorney J. Sidney Crowley must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Massengale.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).