Manuel Anthony Cantu v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-06-00424-CR
Manuel Anthony CANTU,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-1930-CR
Honorable W. C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2007

 

AFFIRMED

Manuel Anthony Cantu was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years one month confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Cantu's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Cantu, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Cantu filed a pro se brief making several assertions. Specifically, Cantu argues that: (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in several respects, including failing to secure the trial testimony of two co-defendants; (2) his written statement was inadmissible because it was coerced and made while under the influence of drugs; and (3) there existed prejudice and bias by the State and/or the trial court. The State filed a brief in response asserting no error.

We have reviewed the record, counsel's Anders brief, and the briefs filed by Cantu and the State. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that arguably supports the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

 

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Do Not Publish