Gilbert Plasencia v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 143rd District Court of Reeves County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GILBERT PLASENCIA, )

) No. 08-03-00518-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 143rd District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Reeves County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# 03-01-06714-CRR)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeals arises from a deferred adjudication of guilt. On April 4, 2003, Appellant Gilbert Plasencia, based on an agreed plea, was found guilty of the offense of aggravated assault. The trial court admonished Appellant as to the consequences of a plea of guilty, accepted Appellant=s guilty plea, and found the evidence sufficient for a finding of guilt. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of 4 years and assessed a fine of $1,500. Appellant was served with the conditions of his probation.

On November 21, 2003, the State filed an amended motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on December 5, 2003, Appellant entered a plea of not true to the State=s allegations in paragraph one and paragraph two as they pertained to the firearm and true to the remaining allegations in the State=s motion. The trial court found all the allegations to be true, granted the State=s motion, and found Appellant guilty as indicted and sentenced Appellant to 18 years= confinement and assessed a $10,000 fine. The trial court=s sentence and judgment were entered on December 12, 2003, and Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel=s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

May 27, 2004

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)