WILLIAM DAVID MICK v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 36th District Court of San Patricio County

NUMBERS 13-00-721-CR & 13-00-722-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM DAVID MICK, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Ya ez

Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to charges in two separate indictments: 1) aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child; and 2) indecency with a child. In each case, the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to run concurrently. Because appellant confessed to the offenses in both cases (1) with the same confession, we address both cases with this one opinion.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). Counsel states in his brief that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and he has advised him by letter of his opinion that the appeal is without merit but that appellant has the right to review the record and file a response. To date, no response or pro se brief has been filed.

When an appellate court receives a "frivolous appeal" brief, it must then "conduct 'a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.'" Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346 (1988) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
Further, in accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant the motion to withdraw. We order appellant's attorney 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).

LINDA REYNA YA EZ

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this the

28th day of June 2001.

1. The charges against appellant stem from separate allegations of misconduct with two of the appellant's daughters.