Kuon, Billy Sarak v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2002
• Docket: 01-01-00849-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinions issued August 29, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-01-00849-CR

BILLY SARAK KUON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 844101

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Billy Sarak Kuon, pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, to burglary of a habitation. The trial court deferred adjudicating appellant and placed him on community supervision for six years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging appellant committed a new offense, burglary of a motor vehicle, and failed to meet the community service hours conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded "not true" to the allegations in the State's motion to adjudicate. After a pre-sentence investigation and punishment hearing, the trial court found true the state's allegation concerning the commission of a new offense, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Appointed counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the minimum requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for error on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Counsel has certified that a copy of the brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised he had a right to file a pro se response. More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not done so.

We have reviewed the entire record, and we hold there are no arguable grounds for appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We note that counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Taft, and Keyes.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.