JOSE ABRAN CANTU v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County

NUMBERS 13-05-376-CR

13-05-377-CR

13-05-378-CR

13-05-379-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
JOSE ABRAN CANTU, Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 
On appeal from the 92nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

 

Appellant, Jose Abran Cantu, was charged in four cases with aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003). Appellant entered a plea of guilty in each case, and the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' confinement in the first and second case, twenty years' confinement in the third case, and five years' confinement in the fourth case, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded there are no meritorious grounds for appeal and has asked permission to withdraw from the case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Specifically, 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, 813 S.W.2d at 509-10. 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 appellate record and counsel'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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Having affirmed the judgments, we now grant counsel's request to withdraw. We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Owens, No. AP-74,996, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1691, at *9-*12 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2006); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam).

 

Furthermore, appellant's motion to correct the trial court's certifications of his right to appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), is hereby denied as moot. (1)

 

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

 

Do not publish.

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

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 9th day of November, 2006.

 

1. On August 11, 2005, appellant filed a motion to correct the trial court's certifications of his right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court's certifications originally indicated that the cases were plea bargained and that appellant did not have the right to appeal. Appellant contended that the cases had not been plea bargained, and therefore, he had the right to appeal. This Court abated and remanded the appeals so that the trial court could review whether the cases were plea bargained and whether appellant had the right to appeal. On April 17, 2006, the trial court signed corrected certifications indicating that the cases had not been plea bargained and that appellant had the right to appeal.