AMELIA ANN PEREZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Kleberg County

NUMBER 13-01-774-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

  AMELIA ANN PEREZ, Appellant,

v.

  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Kleberg County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

In accordance with a plea agreement, appellant, Amelia Ann Perez, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred adjudicating appellant=s guilt, and placed her on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found appellant had violated one or more of the conditions of her community supervision. The court revoked appellant=s community supervision, found her guilty of the offense of aggravated assault, and sentenced her to eight years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal after the trial court granted her permission to do so.[1]

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in which he concluded this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certifies in his brief he served appellant with a copy of the brief and informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No suchbrief has been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, an appellate court must conduct Aa full examination of all proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal, agree that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 3rd day of July, 2002.

[1]The extra-notice requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) apply to judgments adjudicating guilt and assessing punishment, entered pursuant to plea agreements, after deferred adjudication has been revoked. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 713-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (notice of appeal must specify appeal is for jurisdictional defects, from a ruling on a pre-trial motion, or that trial court granted appellant permission to appeal); White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In appellant=s notice of appeal, appellant indicated she requested permission from the trial court to appeal her case. The trial court expressly acknowledged that request and appointed appellate counsel. The court ordered the reporter to prepare the record of the revocation hearing for the appeal, at no cost to appellant. Based on the facts of this case, we conclude the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. Because it did so, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3)