Ricardo Flores Mendoza v. State
This text of Ricardo Flores Mendoza v. State (Ricardo Flores Mendoza 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.
Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Ricardo Flores Mendoza, was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon within a penal institution and sentenced to seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The sentence was ordered to begin upon the completion of the sentence the appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense. We affirm.
Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
is Court has no discretion to permit Appellant's untimely filed notice of appeal to confer jurisdiction over his appeal. See In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) (op. on reh'g). See generally Denton County v. Huther, 43 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (dismissing an accelerated appeal for want of jurisdiction where appellants failed to file their notice of appeal within twenty days after the date the order was signed).
Pending before this Court are two separate court reporters' requests for extensions of time in which to prepare the reporter's record. Considering our disposition of Appellant's appeal, those requests are rendered moot.
Accordingly, this purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ricardo Flores Mendoza v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-flores-mendoza-v-state-texapp-2007.