Rene Arroyo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

99-00662 Arroyo v State of Texas.wpd No. 04-99-00662-CR
Rene ARROYO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 97-CR-5999
Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 18, 2000

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

The trial court found Rene Arroyo guilty of deadly conduct by use of a firearm. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the court sentenced Arroyo to ten years imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for ten years. The State later filed a motion to revoke, alleging Arroyo violated the conditions of his community supervision by burglarizing a vehicle and failing to pay all of the administrative fees and court costs then due. At the hearing on the motion, Arroyo plead true to the allegation that he committed burglary of a vehicle. The trial court revoked Arroyo's community supervision, but reduced the sentence to eight years. Arroyo appeals.

Arroyo's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Arroyo was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief.

Arroyo filed a brief in which he first generally complains his counsel was ineffective. Arroyo does not specify any acts or omissions of counsel that he contends were deficient, nor does he point to anything in the record to support his contention. He thus presents nothing for us to review. Moreover, after a thorough review, we find no evidence on the face of the record of deficient performance by counsel.

Arroyo also appears to argue the trial court made an affirmative finding of use of a deadly weapon, in violation of his plea agreement. The plea bargain contained an agreement there would be no affirmative finding of deadly weapon. The prosecutor explained to the court at the plea hearing the purpose of this agreement was so that Arroyo would be eligible for community supervision. The court complied with the plea agreement and, although the judge found Arroyo guilty of deadly conduct by use of a firearm, it did not make an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. Likewise, the court's judgment imposing sentence after revoking community supervision does not contain an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. We therefore overrule Arroyo's points of error.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment and grant the motion to withdraw filed by Arroyo's counsel. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish