Kenneth Biondo, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 81st Judicial District Court of Atascosa County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00353-CR

Kenneth BIONDO, Jr.,

Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 01-11-0223-CRA

Honorable Donna Rayes, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 14, 2007

AFFIRMED

On May 13, 2002, Appellant Kenneth Biondo, Jr. was placed on five years deferred adjudication community supervision for possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. On February 24, 2005, the State filed an amended motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke community supervision. On December 20, 2005, Biondo waived reading of the allegations and entered pleas of true on six different counts. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and the case was reset for sentencing on March 2, 2006. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Biondo to two years confinement in the State Jail facility, suspended and probated for a period of five years. Additionally, the trial court ordered Biondo to serve 180 days in the State Jail facility as a condition of his community supervision and assessed a fine in the amount of $1,500.00. Biondo's court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Biondo with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Biondo did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n. 1.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Do Not Publish