IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JULY 22, 2004
______________________________PATRICK EUGENE NASH,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B14446-0205; HON. JACK R. MILLER, PRESIDING _________________________________
On Motion for Rehearing __________________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Pending before the court are motions of Patrick Eugene Nash, appellant, for rehearing and to supplement his appellate brief. We overrule the motion for rehearing and grant the "motion to supplement appellant's brief."
Appellant contends, in his motion for rehearing, that his original brief was missing a page and that we "specifically referred to this omission in [our] original opinion." Furthermore, he claims that the missing portion of his brief contained an argument that "the scope of the search . . . exceeded that allowed by law." However, in our Modified Opinion Per T.R.A.P. Rule 50 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure issued on June 25, 2004, we withdrew our original opinion and addressed the issue of whether the officer exceeded the scope of the search by searching in appellant's sock. In reviewing the issue, we found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress. Thus, in our modified opinion, we addressed the issue of scope which is the same issue appellant now contends we failed to review.
Therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled, and the motion to supplement the brief is granted.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
t-align: center; line-height: 0.416667in; margin-bottom: 0.104167in">MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Guadalupe Rosales, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. Appellant was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant appeals these convictions. We affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably 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 judgments. Additionally, counsel has certified that she 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. See 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 her Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have 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, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (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 judgments are affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.