RAY A. GRIFFIN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 117th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBERS 13-07-009-CR

13-07-010-CR

13-07-011-CR

COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAY A. GRIFFIN, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Ray A. Griffin, pleaded guilty to each of the charges in the three indictments presented against him, including charges for possession of and possession with intent to deliver controlled substances ranging from state jail to first degree felonies arising from three different arrests in a single criminal episode. (1) The trial court found appellant guilty of each offense. Punishment was tried to the court with an agreement that the State would recommend no more than 20 years' incarceration, with all sentences to run concurrently. The trial court sentenced appellant to 20 years' imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for some offenses and two years in a state jail facility for other offenses, all to run concurrently, with credit for time served. Appellant's counsel concludes that the appeal presents no legally nonfrivolous questions. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal presents no legally nonfrivolous questions. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at 744-45; see 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. 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 the Court that she notified appellant of the following: (1) she filed an Anders brief in the appeal; (2) she is requesting to withdraw as appellant's attorney because she was unable to find a meritorious basis for appeal; and (3) appellant has the right to review the appellate 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. Counsel has forwarded appellant a copy of the brief and a copy of her motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Counsel also made the record available to appellant. 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 High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

II. Discussion

In compliance with Anders, counsel has carefully examined the facts and matters contained in the record and researched the law. Based on her analysis, counsel informs this Court that the appeal presents no legally nonfrivolous question. In reaching this conclusion, counsel has examined the indictment, has thoroughly read the record and evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to the indictment, and has examined the record for any arguable violations of the Constitution, state statutes, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Texas Rules of Evidence.

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." 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 we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that there is no basis for presenting any legally nonfrivolous issue and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 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.").

III. Conclusion

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Having carried that motion with the case, 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 9th day of August, 2007.

1. The three cause numbers have been consolidated for the purpose of this appeal.