From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Constancio v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Jan 13, 2016
NO. 03-14-00411-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 13, 2016)

Opinion

NO. 03-14-00411-CR

01-13-2016

Manuel Ruiz Constancio, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. A-11-0535-S, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Manuel Ruiz Constancio pleaded guilty in 2011 to robbery and was placed on deferred adjudication community service for ten years. In 2013, the State moved to revoke his probation and to adjudicate his guilt of robbery. In 2014, the court held a hearing and found true the State's allegations that appellant violated the terms of his probation by engaging in indecency with a child by contact, failing to complete ten hours per month of community-service work, failing to report to his probation officer once, and failing to timely complete a class concerning theft by check. The trial court found appellant guilty of robbery and assessed sentence at ten years in prison. He appealed.

This Court has affirmed a conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. See Constancio v. State, No. 03-14-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2015, no pet.). --------

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

We granted appellant's motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief, permitting him to file a brief by November 19, 2015. He has not filed a brief.

We have reviewed the record and the Anders brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgment of conviction and grant counsel's motion to withdraw as appellant's attorney.

/s/_________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Affirmed Filed: January 13, 2016 Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Constancio v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Jan 13, 2016
NO. 03-14-00411-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 13, 2016)
Case details for

Constancio v. State

Case Details

Full title:Manuel Ruiz Constancio, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Jan 13, 2016

Citations

NO. 03-14-00411-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 13, 2016)