Natividad Villa v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Natividad Villa v. State

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

Docket07-06-00346-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Natividad Villa v. State (Natividad Villa v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Natividad Villa v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 07-06-0346-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

DECEMBER 5, 2006

______________________________

NATIVIDAD VILLA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 69^TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

NO. 3422; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Natividad Villa (appellant) appeals from an order adjudicating him guilty and ordering that he serve two years in prison. He had previously pled guilty to aggravated perjury without a recommendation as to punishment. His appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders⁽¹⁾ brief in conjunction with that motion. In the brief, he represents that, after conducting a diligent search, he found no meritorious issues warranting appeal. Along with his brief, appellate counsel sent appellant a letter informing him of his conclusions and his right to file a pro se response or brief. We too informed appellant, by letter, of his right to appear via a pro se response or brief no later than November 30, 2006. To date, no response has been filed.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel illustrated why the appeal was meritless. Appellant pled true to the allegation that he had committed a new offense. A plea of true standing alone supports a decision to revoke probation or adjudicate guilt. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We have also conducted our own review of the record, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error. That review failed to reveal any error.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NO. 07-06-0346-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

DECEMBER 5, 2006

______________________________

NATIVIDAD VILLA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 69^TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

NO. 3422; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Natividad Villa (appellant) appeals from an order adjudicating him guilty and ordering that he serve two years in prison. He had previously pled guilty to aggravated perjury without a recommendation as to punishment. His appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders⁽¹⁾ brief in conjunction with that motion. In the brief, he represents that, after conducting a diligent search, he found no meritorious issues warranting appeal. Along with his brief, appellate counsel sent appellant a letter informing him of his conclusions and his right to file a pro se response or brief. We too informed appellant, by letter, of his right to appear via a pro se response or brief no later than November 30, 2006. To date, no response has been filed.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel illustrated why the appeal was meritless. Appellant pled true to the allegation that he had committed a new offense. A plea of true standing alone supports a decision to revoke probation or adjudicate guilt. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We have also conducted our own review of the record, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error. That review failed to reveal any error.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Natividad Villa v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natividad-villa-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack