From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santana v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Aug 3, 2016
No. 10-16-00028-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2016)

Opinion

No. 10-16-00028-CR

08-03-2016

ORLANDO WILLIAM SANTANA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-01407-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted Orlando William Santana of the offense of failure to register as a sex offender. The trial court assessed punishment at 15 years confinement. We affirm.

Santana's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Santana of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Santana did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Santana is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Santana a copy of our decision, notify Santana of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed August 3, 2016
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Santana v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Aug 3, 2016
No. 10-16-00028-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2016)
Case details for

Santana v. State

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO WILLIAM SANTANA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Aug 3, 2016

Citations

No. 10-16-00028-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2016)