GEORGE TORRES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County

Torres v. SOT NUMBERS 13-02-00280-CR

13-02-00281-CR

13-02-00282-CR

 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

GEORGE TORRES, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

A jury found appellant, George Torres, guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child in cause number 13-02-280-CR. (1) After the jury returned its verdict, appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the agreement, appellant judicially confessed that he committed the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child in cause number 13-02-280-CR, and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child in cause number 13-02-281-CR (2) and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child in cause number 13-02-282-CR. (3) In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court assessed appellant's punishment in each case at twenty-five years imprisonment, with all three sentences running concurrently. The trial court has certified that it gave appellant permission to appeal these three cases. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he states that he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record in these three cases and concludes that appellant's appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no errors in the trial court's judgments.

Counsel has certified that he has given appellant a copy of his appellate brief and informed him of his right to examine the record and file a pro se response or brief. To date, appellant has not filed any such response or brief.

Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record in these three cases and counsel's brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support these appeals. We agree with appellant's counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.

The judgments of the trial court in these three cases are affirmed.

 

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

 

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Opinion delivered and filed this the

21st day of August, 2003.

1. Trial court cause number 01-CR-1375-F.

2. Trial court cause number 01-CR-1376-F.

3. Trial court cause number 01-CR-1377-F.