No. 13-07-289-CR
Opinion delivered and filed: January 10, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, GARZA, and VELA.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ, Justice.
Appellant, Victor Velen Martinez, Jr., appeals from his conviction of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). Appellant's sentence of six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Correction was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for a period of ten years. The trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and sentenced appellant to six years' incarceration. After examining the record, appellant's counsel filed a brief concluding that "there is no error upon which an appeal might be based." We affirm.
I. Compliance with Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in which he concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and there are no arguable grounds for an 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 all issues which might arguably support an appeal including sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing. Counsel has informed this Court that he reviewed the record, researched the law applicable to the facts and issues, and now concludes that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Counsel certifies to this Court that he forwarded to appellant a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw with a letter informing appellant of his right to review the record and 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. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also 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, 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 record and have found nothing arguably supporting 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. See Beldsoe, 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. IV. Motion to Withdraw
Having affirmed the judgment, we now grant counsel's motion to withdraw carried with the case on August 23, 2007. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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).