Roger Wade Moore v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County

NUMBER 13-06-552-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ROGER WADE MOORE, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 22nd District Court of Hays County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ya ez

A jury found appellant, Roger Wade Moore, guilty of assault on a public servant, a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years' imprisonment, suspended for six years. Appellant appeals his conviction. Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no issues which might arguably support an appeal. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal presents no legally non-frivolous question. (1) Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. (2) Counsel has informed the Court that he notified appellant of the following: (1) after reviewing the record, he found no meritorious issues for appeal; (2) he is requesting to withdraw as counsel; and (3) appellant has the right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. (3) Counsel has forwarded appellant a copy of the Anders brief and a copy of his motion to withdraw as attorney of record. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. (4)

II. Discussion

In compliance with Anders, counsel reviewed the transcript in this appeal, the sentence received by appellant, and the factual basis for the sentence. Based on his analysis, counsel informs this Court that he has determined that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." (5) Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have considered the issues raised in the brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. (6) We agree with counsel that there is no basis for presenting any legally non-frivolous issue and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. (7)

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. (8) We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. (9)

 

LINDA REYNA YA EZ,

Justice

 

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed

this the 2nd day of August, 2007.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

2. Id. at 744-45; see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

3. 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.

4. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

5. 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.).

6. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

7. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("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.").

8. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

9. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam).