Luis Zamudio v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-98-00683-CR and 04-98-00700-CR
Luis ZAMUDIO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 97-CR-5168 and 97-CR-5167
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 29, 1999

AFFIRMED

Luis Zamudio appeals the voluntariness of his nolo contendere plea to charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault charges. Zamudio's appellate counsel filed a brief stating that there was no arguable point in the appeal and that the appeal is therefore frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel for Zamudio provided him with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Zamudio has done so, filing a pro se brief challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Zamudio contends his retained attorney's threat to withdraw coerced him into agreeing to plead guilty because he feared that if counsel was appointed to represent him, he would receive an unfair trial. We are not persuaded.(1)

There is no evidence in the record supporting his contentions. What this record does show is that Zamudio was properly admonished under Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp.1999). The trial court admonished him on voluntariness, absence of fear or coercion, understanding the consequences of the plea (especially in light of his non-citizen status), the nature of the accusation, the non-binding effect of the State's recommendation, and his ability to withdraw the plea if the court intended to exceed the punishment recommendation.

After our review of the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

 

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Do Not Publish

1. The State argues in its brief that amendment of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure overruled prior caselaw, depriving us of jurisdiction to consider Zamudio's appeal. See Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)(interpreting old Rule 40(b)(1)). Because we believe the proper forum for deciding that issue is one where the issue is fully briefed and argued, for purposes of this appeal we assume jurisdiction without reaching that issue.