Rudolfo Villafuerte v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-04-00342-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODOLFO VILLAFUERTE, APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Rodolfo Villafuerte was convicted of intoxication manslaughter, sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment, and assessed a $10,000.00 fine. Appellant s counsel has filed an Anders1 brief, stating that the record does not present any meritorious points for appeal. The State waived its right to file a brief in the instant case, and Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

Background

On February 19, 2004, Appellant was indicted for the felony offense of intoxication manslaughter. Following a jury trial on October 1, Appellant was convicted of the offense and on October 26, he was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment and assessed a $10,000.00 fine. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on November 4.

 Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.

Appellant s pro se response contends that he is entitled to a new trial because 1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the results of his blood alcohol concentration test, 2) his substantial rights were affected by statements made by the State at trial, and 3) his Miranda rights were not read to him in Spanish.

When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate court can either 1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or 2) determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an independent examination of the record, we find no reversible error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Conclusion

Appellant s counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered February 22, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 498 (1967).