Jose Eloy Mezua v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 3, 2006
• Docket: 14-06-00226-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00226-CR

JOSE ELOY MEZUA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1033311

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to robbery on July 11, 2005.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $500.  On November 9, 2005, the State moved to adjudicate guilt.  After a hearing, on February 10, 2006, the trial court found the allegations in the motion true, adjudicated appellant=s guilt, and sentenced him to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).  As of this date, more than sixty days has passed, and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).