WILLIAM JOHN DAVIDSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County

NUMBER 13-06-219-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

WILLIAM JOHN DAVIDSON, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 277th District Court

of Williamson County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

This is an appeal of a conviction for the state jail felony offense of burglary of a building. Appellant, William John Davidson, pleaded guilty to the indicted offense of burglary of a building with no plea bargain from the State. Appellant signed a document entitled Admonishments to the Defendant for Plea to the Court, wherein the applicable maximum range of punishment was set out. The trial court accepted appellant's plea of guilty and after a punishment hearing, assessed punishment at 15 months' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no issues which might arguably support an appeal. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal presents no legally non-frivolous question. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at 744-45; see 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel has informed the Court that he notified appellant of the following: (1) after reviewing the record, he found no meritorious issues for appeal; (2) he is requesting to withdraw as counsel; and (3) appellant has the right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. Counsel has forwarded appellant a copy of the Anders brief and a copy of his motion to withdraw as attorney of record. He has also provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record in this case. 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 High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

II. Discussion

In compliance with Anders, counsel reviewed the transcript in this appeal, the sentence received by appellant, and the factual basis for the sentence. Based on his analysis, counsel informs this Court that he has determined that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] 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 the brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that there is no basis for presenting any legally non-frivolous issue and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("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 requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and 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 19th day of July, 2007.