John Blankenship v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 29, 2006
• Docket: 13-05-00395-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-05-395-CR

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

JOHN BLANKENSHIP,                                                          Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

                      Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez and Garza

                        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, John Blankenship, was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.021 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2005).  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of the lesser-included offense of indecency with a child.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 21.11 (Vernon 2003).  The trial court accepted appellant's plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, placed him on probation for five years, and fined him $5,000.  The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's probation and to adjudicate his guilt based on appellant's  violations of the conditions of his probation.  Appellant pled true to the allegations in the State's motion.  At the hearing on the motion, the trial court found the allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.  The trial court has certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief.  We affirm.

I.  Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in which she has concluded there are no arguable grounds for appeal and has asked permission to withdraw from the case.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.  See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).  Counsel has informed this Court that (1) she has examined the record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, and (2) she forwarded a copy of the brief and trial transcript to appellant, accompanied by a letter informing appellant of his right to file a pro se brief.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509-10.  More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510.

II.  Independent Review of Record

Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, we must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2003, no pet.).  Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and appellant's brief.  We find nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Therefore, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  See id. at 828 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III.  Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  Having affirmed the judgment, we now grant counsel's request to withdraw.  We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 29th day of June, 2006.

---

^[1]Because all issues of law presented by this case are well-settled, our memorandum opinion only advises the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.