|
|
NUMBER 13-05-640-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ARTURO PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court
of San Patricio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant, Arturo Perez, was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.021 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2005). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pled guilty. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and fined him $5,000. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's probation and to adjudicate his guilt based on appellant's violations of conditions of his probation. Appellant pled true to the allegations in the State's motion. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court found the allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. The trial court has certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. Compliance with Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded there are no arguable grounds for appeal and has moved to withdraw from the case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509-10. 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 Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510.
II. Independent Review of Record
Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, we must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings 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.BCorpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and appellant's brief. We find nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 828 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").
III. Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Having affirmed the judgment, we now grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel 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) (en banc) (per curiam).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 29th day of June, 2006.
[1]Because all issues of law presented by this case are well-settled, our memorandum opinion only advises the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.