John Dennis Moore v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00487-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-01-487-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

JOHN DENNIS MOORE,                                                         Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

                        On appeal from the 252nd District Court

                                of Jefferson County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

                                   O P I N I O N

                  Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

                                Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, John Dennis Moore, pled no contest to the offense of failure to comply with registration requirements of the sex offender program.  The trial court accepted appellant=s plea and, in accordance with the plea agreement, sentenced appellant to one year in the state jail.

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in which he concluded this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  Counsel certifies in his brief that he served appellant with a copy of the brief and informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No such brief has been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, an appellate court must conduct Aa full examination of all proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have carefully reviewed the record in this appeal and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal in this cause, agree that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

Furthermore, because the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with a plea bargain agreement, appellant was required to comply with the additional notice requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3).  Rule 25.2(b)(3) requires a defendant, appealing from a plea bargained conviction, to file a notice of appeal stating the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, from a ruling on a pre-trial motion, or show that the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal from the trial court.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).  Appellant=s notice of appeal did not allege any of the additional notice requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3).

We conclude we are without jurisdiction.  See id.; White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Additionally, in accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  We grant appellant=s attorney=s motion to withdraw.  Furthermore, 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).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 3rd day of July, 2002.