Eliseo Vargas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 13, 2003
• Docket: 13-02-00380-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-02-380-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ELISEO VARGAS , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

In October 1994, appellant, Eliseo Vargas, pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child. Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years and fined $500.00. In December 2000, the State filed a motion to adjudicate. On May 1, 2002, a hearing was held on the motion, and the trial court adjudicated guilt and assessed punishment at five years in the Texas Department of Corrections. We affirm.

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. In the brief, counsel explains that, after reviewing the entire record, he is unable to assert any arguable point of error because there appears to be no error that would result in a reversal of the trial court's judgment. In the brief, counsel discusses the record, and reviews jurisdiction, the judgment, sufficiency of the evidence, assistance of counsel, and other matters, including appellant's plea, the indictment, and venue. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.738, 744-45 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

In Pension v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." We have, likewise, reviewed the record and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal, agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief and a complete copy of the appellate record. He advised appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. The time for filing his brief has elapsed, and no such response has been received by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 13th day of March, 2003.