IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00037-CR
Pedro Jose Meza,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 213th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 0905514D
ORDER
In light of the decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Meza v. State, No. PD-1181-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1822, *16 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2006), the Court withdraws its order dated April 12, 2005, to the extent that it denies counsel’s motion to withdraw, and its order dated July 13, 2005 denying counsel’s second motion to withdraw and substitutes this order in their place.
This Court, by our review of counsel’s Anders[1] brief and our review of the record, “has verified” that “appointed counsel has exercised diligence” in analyzing the record; and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that “there are in fact no non-frivolous issues to be raised in the appeal.” Meza v. State, No. PD-1181-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1822, *10 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2006); Meza v. State, No. 10-05-00037-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5566 (Tex. App.—Waco July 13, 2005) (mem. op.), remanded for reconsideration of order, No. PD-1181-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1822, *16 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2006). There being no constitutional right to counsel to pursue a frivolous appeal, the only appropriate action with respect to counsel’s motion to withdraw is to grant it. Meza v. State, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1822, at *10.
We note that counsel has previously complied with the “educational burden” to advise Appellant of his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review if he did not prevail in this Court. See Id., at *15, fn. 23; Ex parte Owens, No. AP-74,996, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1691 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2006).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Withdrawal granted
Order issued and filed November 1, 2006
Do not publish
7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in modifying its judgment to add an assessment of attorney’s fees. Vanhardenberg’s second issue is overruled.
Having overruled each of Vanhardenberg’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 2009
Do not publish
[CRPM]