Robert Collins and J&L Bail Bonds v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 28, 2005
• Docket: 07-05-00011-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0011-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 28, 2005

______________________________

ROBERT COLLINS AND J & L BAIL BONDS, APPELLANTS

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF OCHILTREE COUNTY;

NO. 2344; HONORABLE KENNETH RAY DONAHUE, JUDGE

_______________________________

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 14, 2005, the clerk of this court received a copy of a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of appellants Robert Collins and J & L Bail Bonds. By letter dated January 14, 2005, the clerk advised counsel for appellants that a filing fee had not been received, see Tex. R. App. P. 5. The clerk's letter likewise advised that failure to pay the filing fee may result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

The filing fee has not been paid. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

James T. Campbell

Justice

the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each case, all periods of confinement to run concurrently. 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 favored us with a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises a ground that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed this ground 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 orders are affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

Do not publish.