Ronnie Vela v. State
This text of Ronnie Vela v. State (Ronnie Vela 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
RONNIE VELA, Appellant,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ronnie Vela, was indicted for the criminal offense of theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon 2006). On May 1, 2008, Vela entered a plea of guilty to the court and, after a bench trial, was found guilty and sentenced to two years in a state jail facility, probated for five years. On August 21, 2008, the state filed a Motion to Revoke Vela's probation, alleging that Vela had violated certain conditions of his probation. On November 21, 2008, Vela pleaded true to allegations that he had violated conditions, namely that he had used cocaine during the pendency of his probation. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked Vela's probation, and sentenced him to two years' confinement in a state jail facility. Concluding that "there are no meritorious issues for appeal," Vela's counsel has filed a brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of this appeal. We affirm.
I. Compliance with Anders v. California
Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no appealable issues for this Court to consider. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with Anders, following his review of the Court's file and the transcripts, his research, and his correspondence with appellant, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record including, among other things, a review of grand jury proceedings, pre-trial motions, research and investigation, competency, sentencing, right to present evidence during the guilt/innocence and punishment stages, and right to appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.
Counsel has informed this Court that he has reviewed the appellate record and concluded there are no arguable grounds for reversal. He has also informed this Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the transcripts in his case, a copy of the brief, and notified appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response to counsel's brief and motion to withdraw within thirty days. (1) See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. Id. at 409; see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; Stafford, 813 at 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.
II. Independent Review
The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").
III. Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant his motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. (2) See Tex. R. App.
P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ronnie Vela v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-vela-v-state-texapp-2009.