Dolores Grunauer v. Irene Difilippo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 7, 2003
• Docket: 07-03-00149-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-03-0149-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 7, 2003

______________________________

DOLORES GRUNAUER, APPELLANT

V.

IRENE DIFILIPPO, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2003-593,853; HONORABLE PAULA LANEHART, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

After appellant Dolores Grunauer perfected this appeal, she was notified by letter dated March 27, 2003, that the filing fee of $125 had not been paid and that the docketing statement had not been filed. By a second letter dated April 22, 2003, this Court again notified Grunauer that the filing fee remained outstanding and that failure to pay by May 5, 2003, would subject the appeal to dismissal. Thereafter, appellee Irene Difilippo filed a motion to dismiss requesting that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a directive of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. On May 5, Grunauer paid the filing fee, filed a docketing statement, and also filed a timely response to the motion to dismiss establishing that the fee had been paid and the docketing statement filed. Thus, we find no basis to dismiss this appeal and must deny Difilippo's motion.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

size: 12pt">NO. 07-09-0062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 27, 2009

______________________________

ROBERT LOPEZ, III, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 110TH DISTRICT COURT OF FLOYD COUNTY;

NO. 4363; HONORABLE WILLIAM P. SMITH, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Robert Lopez, III, was convicted, in a two count indictment, of aggravated robbery, Count I, and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, Count II. Appellant was sentenced to 45 years confinement on Count I and 20 years confinement on Count II , all within the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with all sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals. We will affirm.

          Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.

          By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

          Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                           Mackey K. Hancock

                                                                                     Justice

Do not publish.