ORLANDO HULL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBERS 13-06-00211-CR and 13-06-00212-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ORLANDO HULL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Orlando Hull, appeals from the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision and sentencing him to 60 years in prison. Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon 2006). Hull's appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal," filed a brief in which she reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2005, Hull pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and guilty to credit card abuse. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003), 32.31 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court accepted Hull's pleas, deferred ajudication on the aggravated robbery charge for 10 years, and sentenced him to 2 years in prison for the credit card abuse charge. Hull's credit card abuse sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for 5 years for that charge and 10 years for the aggravated robbery charge.

The State filed motions to revoke community supervision on March 8, 2006. In support of revoking probation, the State alleged that Hull had not paid mandatory fees, failed to attend probation meetings, and that Hull assaulted, harassed, or robbed several individuals while on community supervision.

The trial court held a hearing where live testimony was taken from alleged victims of Hull's actions after he was placed on community supervision. One individual testified that Hull used a knife to rob him, and another individual testified that she was injured in an altercation with Hull. The trial court found true the State's allegations in its motion to revoke community supervision, entered a judgment revoking community supervision, and sentenced Hull to 60 years in prison. Hull filed a motion to reconsider and reduce the judgment, which was denied. This appeal ensued.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, in which she concludes there is nothing that merits review on direct appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at 744-45; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record and referred this Court to what, in her opinion, are all issues which might arguably support an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.

Counsel has informed this Court that: (1) she has diligently read and reviewed the record and the circumstances of appellant's conviction, including the facts of the case and the veracity of the allegations made in the State's motions to revoke; (2) she believes that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal; and (3) she forwarded to appellant a copy of the brief along with a letter informing appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. No pro se brief has been filed.

B. Independent Review

The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. CONCLUSION

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 5TH day of July, 2007.