|
|
NUMBER 13-01-00644-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG
ROBERT JOSEPH CALDWELL, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Without a plea agreement, appellant, Robert Joseph Caldwell, pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child,[1] a state jail felony. The trial court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in a state jail, a fine of $500.00, and restitution in the amount of $602.00. Thereafter, the court suspended the order of confinement, placed appellant on community supervision for a term of five years, and ordered that he be placed in a substance abuse felony punishment treatment facility. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
A. Appellant=s Appeal
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)). Appellant=s counsel certified in the brief that she has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.
Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel=s brief, find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and agree with appellant=s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
B. Counsel=s Motion to Withdraw
In accordance with Anders, appellant=s attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw. We order appellant=s attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this the
13th day of June, 2002.
[1] Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.04 (Vernon Supp. 2002).