Hugo Ernesto Vigil v. State
This text of Hugo Ernesto Vigil v. State (Hugo Ernesto Vigil 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.
Opinion
|
|
NUMBERS 13-05-104-CR & 13-05-105-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
HUGO ERNESTO VIGIL, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez
Appellate Cause Number 13-05-104-CR[1]
On July 11, 2000, in cause number 13-05-104-CR, a jury found appellant, Hugo Ernesto Vigil,[2] guilty of the felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault.[3] On July 12, 2000, the jury assessed punishment at eight years= community supervision.[4] In 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision by committing burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft on July 11, 2004 (appellate cause number 13-05-105-CR).[5] Appellant pleaded Atrue@ to the allegations, the trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision, and sentenced him to eight years= imprisonment.
Appellate Cause Number 13-05-105-CR[6]
On January 10, 2005, in cause number 13-05-105-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. The trial court accepted his plea and the jury assessed punishment at twenty years= imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine.[7] The trial court ordered the sentence in cause number 13-05-105-CR to begin after the sentence in cause number 13-05-104-CR ceased to operate.[8]
In each case, appellant=s counsel has filed a brief with this Court asserting there is no basis for appeal.[9] We agree, and affirm the trial court=s judgments.
Anders Briefs
According to counsel=s briefs, he has reviewed the clerk=s record and reporter=s record and has concluded that appellant=s appeals are frivolous and without merit.[10] The briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal in either case.[11] In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court=s judgments. In the briefs, appellant=s counsel states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.[12] No such brief has been filed in either case.
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.@[13] We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel=
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hugo Ernesto Vigil v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugo-ernesto-vigil-v-state-texapp-2006.