Christopher Charles Delgado v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this CaseMEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00726-CR
Christopher Charles DELGADO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1997-CR-1639
Honorable Philip A. Kazan, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 8, 2004
AFFIRMED
Appellant, Christopher Charles Delgado, pled true to violations alleged in the State's motion to revoke his community supervision, following which the trial court adjudicated him guilty of possession of a controlled substance and assessed punishment at four years' confinement and a $1,000 fine.
Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing one arguable issue, but concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The arguable issue is that the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant pled true to all of the alleged violations of his community supervision, both the State and trial counsel recommended a two-year sentence, trial counsel offered mitigating statements on appellant's behalf, and nothing in the record indicates appellant was coerced into pleading true to the State's allegations. Therefore, nothing in the record affirmatively demonstrates ineffectiveness on trial counsel's part.
Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders and he has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not done so. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, 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 the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.