Christopher Charles Delgado v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case

MEMORANDUM 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DO NOT PUBLISH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.