Thomas Mistrot v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 1, 2007
• Docket: 13-05-00564-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-05-564-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

THOMAS MISTROT, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Thomas Mistrot ("Mistrot"), appeals revocation of his community supervision. On March 19, 2003, Mistrot pleaded guilty to the offense of assault on a public servant. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement, suspended imposition of the sentence, and placed Mistrot on community supervision for five years. On April 5, 2005, the State filed a motion to revoke. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked Mistrot's community supervision and sentenced him to ten years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We conclude that Mistrot's appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the record and concludes that appellant has no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel certifies that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. We conclude counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. More than thirty days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See id.; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); Stafford 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of the case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 1^ST day of March, 2007.