Moore, Darrick B. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 27, 2000
• Docket: 13-00-00117-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-00-116-CR AND 13-00-117-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

DARRICK B. MOORE

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez, and Rodriguez Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Darrick Moore, entered pleas of guilty to delivery of cocaine, a controlled substance⁽¹⁾ in cause numbers A-99-0094-CR and A-99-0140-CR in the 36th Judicial District Court of Aransas County, Texas. The court found appellant guilty of each charge and sentenced him to eighteen months confinement in a state jail with sentences running concurrently, plus a $5000.00 fine. Appellant appeals from the two judgments.⁽²⁾

We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed briefs wherein counsel set out that he reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record in each case. Counsel informed the Court that in cause number A-99-0094-CR the records revealed no arguable point of error, whereas in cause number A-99-0140-CR the only arguable point that may support an appeal is a clerical mistake in the trial court's judgment stating that appellant entered a plea of guilty to an indictment when in fact it was to an information. Other than the one arguable error, counsel concluded there is no other error upon which a nonfrivolous appeal in either cause might be based.

Appellant's briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Counsel referred this Court to the only error in the record that might arguably support an appeal. See id. at 744. He presented a professional evaluation of each record demonstrating why there are no other arguable grounds of error on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certified in his briefs that he served appellant with a copy of each brief in which he informed appellant of his right to examine the record for the purposes of filing any pro se action he might feel appropriate under the circumstances. Thirty days have passed since appellant was so advised, and he has not filed any pro se brief.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." We have carefully reviewed the record in each appeal and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either cause, agree that each appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

Additionally, in accordance with Anders, counsel has requested permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant in both cause numbers. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant appellant's attorney's motions to withdraw. Furthermore, we order him to notify appellant of the disposition of each 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 27th day of July, 2000.

1. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102, 481.112 (Vernon Supp. 2000).

2. Since both cases address the same issues for our review, we consolidate the appeals into a single opinion.