JORGE LUIS MURILLO v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 138th District Court of Cameron County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-08-00217-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG JORGE LUIS MURILLO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza On October 24, 2007, appellant, Jorge Luis Murillo, was indicted by a Cameron County grand jury for possession of less than 2,000 pounds, but more than fifty pounds, of marihuana, a second-degree felony.1 1 See TEX . HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN . § The punishm ent range for a second-degree felony is not m ore than 20 years or less than 2 years. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A N N . § 12.33(a) (Vernon 2003). 481.121(a), (b)(5) (Vernon 2003). On February 19, 2008, Murillo entered into a cold plea with the State whereby Murillo agreed to plead guilty to the offense without a sentencing recommendation from the State. The trial court accepted Murillo s guilty plea and sentenced him to two years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division with no fine. On March 28, 2008, the trial court noted that this was not a plea bargain case and certified Murillo s right to appeal. This appeal ensued. I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V . CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Murillo s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that, based on his review of the record, [t]his is a frivolous appeal and no issues are presented for the Court s review. Counsel s 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 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable 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; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 2 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (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 requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, Murillo s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant his motion to withdraw. We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam). DORI CONTRERAS GARZA, Justice Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 6th day of November, 2008. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
