Steven Joseph Collins v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00721-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-01-721-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTIBEDINBURG

STEVEN JOSEPH COLLINS,                                         Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

    On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

          Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Castillo

                                   Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, Steven J. Collins, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.^[1]  We affirm.

Pursuant to a written plea bargain agreement, appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance on July 27, 2000, and was sentenced to two years confinement, which was suspended for three years of community supervision.  On July 30, 2001, appellant pled true to violating the conditions of his probation by committing the offenses of: evading detention, failure to identify, and possession of marijuana.  The trial court granted the State=s motion to revoke probation and sentenced appellant to the previously determined two-year jail term.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief stating that he has thoroughly reviewed the clerk=s record and the court reporter=s record in this case and found this appeal to present no meritorious issues.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  Counsel has certified that he has given the appellant a copy of his appellate brief and informed him of his right to examine the record and file a pro se response or brief.  No such response or brief has been filed.  Counsel has presented no points of error to this Court.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief.  The court stated:  Aonce the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself conduct >a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.= A  Id.  (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).  This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

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

Opinion delivered and filed this the

29th day of August, 2002.

---

¹ Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.115 (Vernon 1992).