NO. 07-08-0365-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
APRIL 29, 2009
______________________________
ABRAHAM MORENO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242 nd DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;
NO. B 17634-0805; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Abraham Moreno, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and sentenced to five years confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders (footnote: 1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) . Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review . In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. (footnote: 2) By letter, this Court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel raises a potential issue of legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. He then concludes after a review of all the evidence that under the appropriate standards of review, reversal is not required.
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
FOOTNOTES
1:
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2:
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal , counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , at 408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.