LORENZO LARA-HAYNES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 130th District Court of Matagorda County

NUMBER 13-05-731-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
LORENZO LARA-HAYNES, Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 
On appeal from the 130th District Court
of Matagorda County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

 

Appellant, Lorenzo Lara-Haynes, was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant entered a plea of guilty. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, placed him on probation for ten years, and fined him $500. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's probation and to adjudicate his guilt based on appellant's alleged violations of the conditions of his probation. The trial court found four of the State's seven allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to seventy years' imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.

Concluding that the appeal is without merit, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he presented four possible points of error, including (1) whether the indictment was defective, (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to rule on one of appellant's hearsay objections and in overruling a subsequent hearsay objection, and (3) whether the evidence to support the trial court's finding of "true" with respect to appellant's seventh alleged violation of the conditions of his community supervision was sufficient. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that there are no meritorious issues to advance on appeal and has moved to withdraw from the case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id. at 744-45; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record and referred this Court to all issues which might arguably support an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no meritorious grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510.

II. Independent Review of Record

Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, we must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have considered the issues raised in appellant's brief. We find nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 828 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Having affirmed the judgment, we now grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel 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) (en banc) (per curiam).

 

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

 

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 24th day of August, 2006.