No. 13-05-00061-CR
Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices BENAVIDES and VELA.
Memorandum Opinion by ROGELIO VALDEZ, Chief Justice.
Appellant, Mark Mosqueda, appeals revocation of his community supervision. On May 4, 2004, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant's guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of five years. On September 24, 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and sentenced him to two years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Agreeing with appointed counsel's conclusion the record fails to show an arguable basis to appeal, we affirm the judgement and grant counsel's motion for withdraw.
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 all 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, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (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. Moreover, at the hearing on the State's motion to revoke, appellant pleaded true to multiple allegations alleged in the State's motion seeking revocation. Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support a trial court's order of revocation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). 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."). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. III. Motion to Withdraw
An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request to withdraw from case). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of the case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (per curiam).