Eric Espinosa v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-97-01016-CR
Eric ESPINOSA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 95-CR-5545
Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 1998

AFFIRMED

Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which she raises one arguable point of error, but nonetheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Espinosa contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the capital murder cases since they arose out of the same transaction and were not brought to trial within 180 days as mandated by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann.Art. 51.14, Art. III (a), (Vernon 1979). Failure of one state to comply with the requirements of Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not require dismissal of charges in another state. See Bryant v. State, 819 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd.). The purposes of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act are such that a receiving state may reindict, but must adhere to the original time period. See Engle v. Coker, 820 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1991, no pet.). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellant's attorney's motion to withdraw as attorney of record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions