Juan Arnoldo Cantu v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 25, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00450-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-01-450-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

JUAN ARNOLDO CANTU,                                                    Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

      On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

                     Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

                                   Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of marihuana in an amount of fifty pounds or more but less than 2000 pounds,^[1] and was sentenced to twenty years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which she has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1995, no pet.).  Counsel states in her brief that she has served a copy of her brief on appellant and has advised appellant by letter of her opinion that the appeal is without merit but that appellant has the right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  To date, no pro se brief has been filed.

When an appellate court receives a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, it must then Aconduct 'a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.'"  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).  This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

In accordance with Anders, appellant=s attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  We grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw.  We order appellant=s attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 25th day of April, 2002.

---

^[1]See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.121 (Vernon Supp. 2002).