Patty Gail Monroe v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 19, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00703-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER  13-01-703-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

PATTY GAIL MONROE,                                                         Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

                        On appeal from the 252nd District Court

                                of Jefferson County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

                                   O P I N I O N

                  Before Justices Hinojosa, Castillo, and Kennedy^[1]

                                 Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1995, no pet.).

Appellate counsel has included in her brief a statement certifying that she has sent a copy of her brief and the reporter=s record to appellant and has informed appellant by accompanying letter that it is the opinion of counsel that the appeal is without merit, and that he (appellant) personally has the right to view the record and file a pro se brief raising any ground of error or complaint which he may desire.  No pro se brief has been filed.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief.  The court stated: AOnce the appellate court receives this brief, it must then, itself, conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@  Id. at 80.  This we have done, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and that no error appears therein.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

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 of 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.

NOAH KENNEDY

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 19th day of December, 2002.

---

^[1]Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 74.003 (Vernon 1998).