NUMBER 13-00-088-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
FELIX DELEON A/K/A RUBEN BECERRA DELEON
, Appellant,v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee.___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez
Opinion by Chief Justice SeerdenFelix DeLeon, appellant, appeals his conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault following a plea of guilty. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.021 (a)(1)(A) & 22.021 (a)(2)(B) (Vernon 1999). Appellant's court-appointed attorneys have filed a brief in which they conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.(1) The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Appellant entered a guilty plea without the benefit of a plea bargain. He was fully admonished, both orally and in writing, by the court. He acknowledged understanding the admonishments and stated that he was entering his plea voluntarily. The court accepted his plea. Appellant furthermore pled true to two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment. The court again fully admonished appellant before accepting this plea. Appellant again acknowledged that he understood the admonishments and stated that he was also entering this plea voluntarily. The trial court then adjudicated appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and proceeded to a jury trial on punishment. At the conclusion of that hearing, the jury assessed punishment at fifty years confinement and a $10,000 fine for each count, with the prison terms to run concurrently.
Appellant's attorneys state that they have throughly reviewed the record in preparing their brief. They have analyzed each facet of appellant's trial and concluded that there was no arguable basis for an appeal stemming from: the indictment; the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession; the trial court's acceptance of appellant's plea; the conduct of the punishment hearing; the fairness of the punishment assessed; or the effectiveness of counsel's assistance during trial. We have similarly reviewed the record and reach the same conclusion.
As counsel notes, the indictment complies with the statutory requirements in the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.02 (Vernon 1999).
The brief demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress his confession. There is ample support in the record for the court's conclusion that the confession was lawfully obtained. Moreover, appellant has not suggested to this court that his guilty plea was anything other than voluntary. The record shows that appellant was fully admonished prior to entering his guilty plea and his plea of true to the enhancement paragraphs in the indictment. After the admonishments, appellant twice acknowledged that his plea was made voluntarily.
The range of punishment for aggravated sexual assault is not less than fifteen years or more than ninety nine years, or life and a fine not to exceed $10,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 1999). Appellant's assessed punishment of fifty years imprisonment for each count and a $10,000 fine for each count is within the statutorily prescribed range. The court of criminal appeals has long recognized that when the punishment assessed is within the statutorily prescribed range, there is no violation of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Finally, we concur in the conclusion that nothing in the record suggests that appellant's trial counsel's performance was deficient or objectively unreasonable.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice
Do not publish
.Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed
this 31st day of August, 2000.
1. A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.