Douglas Ray Woods v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 7, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00132-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-04-00132-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

DOUGLAS RAY WOODS,                                                                Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                    Appellee.

    On appeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

                         Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

The trial court found appellant, Douglas Ray Woods, guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated, and after finding the enhancement paragraphs to be true, assessed punishment at six years= imprisonment.  The trial court has certified that this case Ais not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.@  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

                                                            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.  No such brief has been filed.

                                         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 and counsel=s brief.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.       

                                                        C.  Anders Counsel

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  An appellate court may grant a 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 grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.

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) (per curiam).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 7th day of July, 2005.