Raul Lopez Hernandez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00399-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-01-399-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

RAUL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ,                                                    Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

                        On appeal from the 138th District Court

                                 of Cameron County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

                  Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

                                  Opinion by Justice Dorsey

This is an appeal of a revocation of community supervision in which appellant, Raul Lopez Hernandez, was sentenced to eighteen months in a state jail facility.  We affirm.

                                                    I. Background

Appellant was indicted for possession of a controlled substance.  He pleaded guilty to the offense without a negotiated plea bargain, and the trial court assessed his punishment at two years in a state jail facility.  The court suspended the sentence and placed him on five years community supervision.  Afterwards appellant was indicted for possession of cocaine (Trial Court Cause No. 01-CR-99-B).  The State filed a motion to revoke, alleging that appellant had violated several terms and conditions of his community supervision.  At the revocation hearing appellant pleaded true to the allegations, and the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to eighteen months in a state jail facility.  At this same hearing appellant pleaded guilty to Cause No. 01-CR-99-B, and the trial court sentenced him to a concurrent eighteen-month sentence in a state jail facility.

                                                   II.  Anders Brief

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  As of this date appellant has not filed a pro se response.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further we find no reversible error in the record.

We AFFIRM the trial court=s judgment.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 20th day of June, 2002.