From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg
Jun 21, 2007
No. 13-05-00777-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)

Opinion

No. 13-05-00777-CR

Opinion filed June 21, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

On appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas.

Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices BENAVIDES and VELA.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant, Eugene Bernard Washington, brings this appeal following the adjudication of his guilt for the offense of credit/debit card abuse and the imposition of a one year sentence in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice following the revocation of his deferred community supervision. We agree with appointed counsel's conclusion that the record fails to show an arguable basis for appeal, and thus we affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion for withdrawal.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there is nothing that merits review on direct appeal. 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 and referred this Court to what, in his opinion, are issues which might arguably support an appeal. 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 informed this Court that: (1) he had diligently read and reviewed the record and the circumstances of appellant's conviction; (2) he believes that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal; and (3) he forwarded to appellant a copy of the brief filed in support of his motion to withdraw with a letter informing appellant of his right to review the 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); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

II. Independent Review

The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they 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 found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v.State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("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, appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant was carried with the case on May 25, 2006. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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).


Summaries of

Washington v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg
Jun 21, 2007
No. 13-05-00777-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)
Case details for

Washington v. State

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE BERNARD WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg

Date published: Jun 21, 2007

Citations

No. 13-05-00777-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)