Robert Joseph Caldwell v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00644-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                  NUMBER 13-01-00644-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

ROBERT JOSEPH CALDWELL,                                              Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

      On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

                                 Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Without a plea agreement, appellant, Robert Joseph Caldwell, pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child,^[1] a state jail felony.  The trial court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in a state jail, a fine of $500.00, and restitution in the amount of $602.00.  Thereafter, the court suspended the order of confinement, placed appellant on community supervision for a term of five years, and ordered that he be placed in a substance abuse felony punishment treatment facility.  Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

                                              A.  Appellant=s Appeal

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)).  Appellant=s counsel certified in the brief that she has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No such brief has been filed.

Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel=s brief, find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and agree with appellant=s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                     B.  Counsel=s Motion to Withdraw

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).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

13^th day of June, 2002.

---

^[1] Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.04 (Vernon Supp. 2002).