Feliciano Fuentes Jimenez AKA "Gordy" v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2000
• Docket: 13-00-00204-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-00-197-CR, 13-00-198-CR, 13-00-201-CR, AND 13-00-204-CR COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

FELICIANO FUENTES JIMENEZ A/K/A GORDY

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Feliciano Fuentes Jimenez, appellant, appeals from his convictions in four causes. In cause number 13-00-197-CR, appellant pled guilty to felony burglary of a building, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (a) (Vernon 1999), and theft of a firearm, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) & (e)(4)(C) (Vernon 1999), and was sentenced to two years confinement. In cause number 13-00-198-CR, appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 1999), and was sentenced to thirty years confinement. In cause number 13-00-201-CR, appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1999), and was sentenced to twenty years confinement. Finally, in cause number 13-00-204-CR, appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 1999), and was sentenced to thirty years confinement. These causes were consolidated for plea and punishment hearings. The trial court accepted appellant's plea in each cause, accepted the State's evidence without objection, and found appellant guilty of the corresponding offenses.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed briefs in each cause, in which he concludes that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.⁽¹⁾ The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

The records reflect that the trial court orally administered the proper admonishments to appellant before accepting his pleas. The same admonishments were given to appellant in writing. Appellant stated that he understood the admonishments. Appellant then pled guilty to each of the charges. He acknowledged that he knowingly and voluntarily entered these pleas. The State then presented appellant's judicial confession and stipulation to evidence without objection. The court adjudicated appellant guilty of the crimes charged. A subsequent punishment hearing was conducted at which time appellant was sentenced as described above. The punishment for each offense was within the statutory range for the crime charged.

Appellant has not suggested to this court that his pleas were anything other than voluntary. The record shows that appellant was fully admonished prior to entering his guilty pleas. After the admonishments, appellant acknowledged that his pleas were made voluntarily.

Because the punishments imposed all fall within the statutorily prescribed ranges of punishment, there is no argument that the punishments are either cruel or unusual. See McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

We find nothing in the records which suggests that appellant's trial counsel's performance was deficient or objectively unreasonable.

The judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 31st day of August, 2000.

1. A copy of counsel's briefs have been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.