Borrego, Jacob v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 9, 2000
• Docket: 13-99-00577-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-99-577-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

JACOB BORREGO , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Chavez, and Kennedy⁽¹⁾

Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Appellant was originally placed on probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Subsequently, he pleaded "true" to the allegations in a motion to revoke his probation. The trial court revoked his probation and assessed punishment at ten years confinement.

Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the record in the trial court and the law applicable thereto and that there are no grounds for error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1995). In the brief, counsel states that he has served a copy of the brief on appellant and has informed appellant, by letter, that it is his view that the appeal is without merit but that he (appellant) has the right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Counsel further states that appellant has been provided with a copy of the transcript and statement of facts from the hearing below. The brief is dated November 5, 1999, which is approximately 90 days prior to the drafting of this opinion. No pro se brief has been filed.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief. The court stated: "once the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Id. at 84. We have done this and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. Counsel has also filed herein a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion is granted.

NOAH KENNEDY

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9th day of March, 2000.

1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 74.003 (Vernon 1998).