Hart, Amasa Black v. State



NUMBER 13-00-267-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

AMASA BLACK HART, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant's community supervision was revoked following a hearing at which appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations contained in the State's motion to revoke community supervision.

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, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders 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, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). Counsel states in his brief that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and he has advised him by letter of his opinion that the appeal is without merit but that appellant has the right to review the record and file a pro se brief. To date, no pro se brief has been filed.

When an appellate court receives a "frivolous appeal" brief, it must then "conduct 'a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.'" Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346 (1988) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.



LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

5th day of April, 2001.