FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MARCH 11, 2003 ______________________________
IGNACIO LARA LUCIANO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee _________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. A13258-9812; HON. JACK R. MILLER, PRESIDING _______________________________
ABATEMENT AND REMAND __________________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Ignacio Lara Luciano (appellant) appeals pro se, his conviction for tampering with governmental records. The clerk's record was filed on November 18, 2002. The reporter's record was filed on January 15, 2003. Thus, appellant's brief was due on February 14, 2003. However, one was not filed on that date. By letter dated February 24, 2003, we notified appellant of the expired deadline and directed him to respond to our notification of same by Thursday, March 6, 2003, or the appeal would be abated to the trial court pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8. March 6, 2003, passed without appellant submitting his brief or otherwise responding to our letter.
Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 64th District Court of Hale County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:
1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;
2. whether appellant is indigent; and,
3. whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel.
We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects. Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue this appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to appointed counsel, then we further direct the court to appoint counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal. The name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of counsel who will represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 2) a reporter's record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before April 10, 2003. Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before April 10, 2003.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
ame="toc 2"/>
NO. 07-10-00316-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
MANUEL GARCIA, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 60,369-D; HONORABLE DON R. EMERSON, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Manuel Garcia, was convicted of credit card abuse[1] and fraudulent use or possession of identifying information[2] and was sentenced by the convicting jury to confinement for two years in a State Jail Facility with a fine of $5,000 on the credit card abuse case and confinement for 15 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a fine of $10,000 on the fraudulent possession of identifying information case. Appellant gave notice of appeal in the credit card abuse case.[3] We affirm the trial courts judgment.
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.[4]
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32(b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009).
[2] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b)(1) (West Supp. 2009).
[3] No notice of appeal is found in the fraudulent possession of identifying information case and, accordingly, this Courts jurisdiction has not been invoked on any matters pertaining to such conviction.
[4] Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.