JULIA HOLGUIN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 379th District Court of Bexar County

NUMBER 13-06-565-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JULIA HOLGUIN, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 379th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Julia Holguin, was charged by indictment with the offense of credit card abuse. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 32.31 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, deferred adjudication of her guilt, and placed her on community supervision for three years. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision and to adjudicate her guilt based on appellant's alleged violations of the terms of her community supervision. Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to 180 days in a State jail facility, with credit for time served.

Concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he presented one arguable point of error: whether counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that there are no meritorious issues to advance on appeal and has moved to withdraw from the case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders. See 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 his opinion, are all issues which might arguably support an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no meritorious grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510.

II. Independent Review of Record

Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, we 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 considered the issues raised in counsel's brief. We find nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 828 ("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 requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Having affirmed the judgment, we now 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) (en banc) (per curiam).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

 

Do not publish.

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

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 26th day of July, 2007.