NUMBER 13-02-674-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________
MARTIN GARZA LONGORIA A/K/A MONTY LONG, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant, Martin Garza Longoria A/K/A Monty Long, entered a plea of guilty to an indictment alleging burglary of a vehicle. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, and placed appellant on deferred community supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging violations of four conditions of his supervision. (1) At his revocation hearing, appellant pled "true" to the alleged violations. The trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and sentenced him to six years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The trial court has certified that this case "is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We conclude that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm.
I. Facts
As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
II. Anders Brief
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel certifies: (1) he diligently reviewed the complete record and researched the law applicable to the facts and issues contained therein; (2) in his professional evaluation, he was unable to find any error which would arguably require a reversal of the trial court's order revoking community supervision; (3) in his opinion, the appeal is without merit; (4) he served a copy of this brief on appellant; (5) he informed appellant of his right to examine the entire appellate record and file a pro se brief on his own behalf. See id. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.
An Anders brief must provide references to both legal precedent and pages in the record to demonstrate why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. We conclude counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.
III. Independent Review of Record
The Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). An appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication-of-guilt process. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (adjudication-of-guilt process includes challenges to sufficiency of notice contained in terms and conditions of deferred adjudication probation, adequacy of State's notice of violation and sufficiency of evidence to support trial court's revocation decision); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003) (no appeal may be taken from adjudication decision). The defendant may, however, appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt when the issues raised by the appeal relate not to the adjudication decision but to the punishment phase. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003).
Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would arguably support a complaint regarding the punishment phase. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
IV. Conclusion
We conclude the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Additionally, we order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of his appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 29th day of August, 2003.
1.