|
|
NUMBER 13-05-00403-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG
MARCUS ANTHONY FLORES, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
In January 1999, appellant, Marcus Anthony Flores, pleaded no contest to delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.112(d) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. In May 2005, on the State's motion, the trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudged him guilty, and assessed his punishment at ten years= imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. This appeal followed.
A. Anders Brief
Appellant=s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief, asserting there is no basis for this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief, counsel states that he has reviewed the clerk=s record and reporter=s record and has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing 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). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no errors in the trial court=s judgment. In the brief, appellant=s counsel certifies that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief raising the following issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) unduly harsh sentencing.
B. Independent Review of Record
Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, the appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2004, no pet.). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s pro se brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827‑28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court=s judgment.
C. Motion to Withdraw
An appellate court may grant counsel=s motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). We note that counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this case. If counsel wishes to file a motion to withdraw, he must file the motion no later than fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and 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. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 6th day of July, 2006.