Gomez, Lee Manuel v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 21, 2000
Docket13-00-00230-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gomez, Lee Manuel v. State (Gomez, Lee Manuel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gomez, Lee Manuel v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-00-230-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

LEE MANUEL GOMEZ

, Appellant,

v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 138th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N
Before Justices Yanez, Chavez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation enhanced by one previous conviction. The appellate attorney herein has detailed the steps taken by the trial court to assure that the plea was taken and the judgment and sentence entered in accordance with the law. She has concluded in her brief that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders 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).

Appellate counsel has also stated in her brief that she has mailed a copy of her brief to appellant, together with a letter informing appellant of his right to examine the appellate record for the purpose of filing a pro se brief. A copy of the letter is enclosed with the brief. 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." We have done this and we conclude that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

Appellate counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which is hereby granted.

NOAH KENNEDY

Retired Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21st day of December, 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Lindsey v. State
902 S.W.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gomez, Lee Manuel v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-lee-manuel-v-state-texapp-2000.