Cantera, Ismael v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-99-616-CR 
  
 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ISMAEL CANTERA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N
Before Justices Seerden, Rodriguez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault. The indictment further alleged that appellant had previously been convicted of burglary. Appellant was found guilty by a jury and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years.

Appellate counsel has filed a very thoroughly researched brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.).

Appellate counsel herein has included in his brief a statement that he is serving a copy of the brief on appellant and has informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a brief in his own behalf with this court. We have not received a pro se brief from appellant.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief. The Court stated: "Once the appellate court receives this brief, it must then, itself, conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." This we have done, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and that no error appears therein.

 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

NOAH KENNEDY

Retired Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 7th day of December, 2000.

1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 74.003 (Vernon 1998).