BLANKENSHIP v. ST., 13-05-395-CR (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi [13th Dist.] 2006)

No. 13-05-395-CRCourt of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi.
Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed June 29, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

Before Justices HINOJOSA, RODRIGUEZ and GARZA.

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Memorandum Opinion by Justice RODRIGUEZ.

Appellant, John Blankenship, was charged by indictment with two counts 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 entered a plea of guilty to one count of the lesser-included offense of indecency with a child See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 21.11 (Vernon 2003). The trial court accepted appellant’s plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, placed him on probation for five 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 the 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 court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders
brief. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in which she has concluded there are no arguable grounds for appeal and has asked permission 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 (1) she has examined the record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, and (2) she forwarded a copy of the brief and trial transcript to appellant, accompanied by a letter informing appellant of his right 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.-Corpus 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 request 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).