NUMBER 13-00-543-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
______________________________________________________________
ORLANDO CHAPA, JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
_______________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
_______________________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Kennedy (1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy
On October 1, 1993, appellant was placed on ten years deferred adjudication community supervision on an open plea of guilty of first degree felony burglary of a habitation. On August 10, 2000, a hearing was held on the state's fourth motion to revoke community supervision. The motion was filed on July 19, 2000, and contained eighteen violation charges. The first three motions to revoke resulted in imposition of immediate sanctions.
Appellant's court appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief meets the requirements ofAnders as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9,11 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1995). The brief is part of a motion to withdraw as counsel. Included with the motion and brief is a statement by appellate counsel to certify that he has mailed a copy of his motion and brief to appellant, which also advises appellant that he has the right to file a pro se brief and of the address where the brief should be sent. Several months have lapsed since the motion and brief was filed with this court, and no pro se brief has been filed.
In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon
receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief. The court stated: "Once the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself
conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." This we have done and
conclude that there are no grounds for an appeal, thus the appeal is wholly frivolous. We grant appellate counsel's motion
to withdraw and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
NOAH KENNEDY
Retired Justice
Do not publish .
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 23rd day of August, 2001.
1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 1998).