Caballero v. State

Full title: RAMIRO CABALLERO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2006

No. 13-05-299-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 20, 2006)

Opinion

No. 13-05-299-CR

Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed July 20, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

Before Justices HINOJOSA, YAÑEZ, and GARZA.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice YAÑEZ.

On April 7, 1995, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Ramiro Caballero, pleaded guilty to the offense of theft.¹ The trial court found appellant guilty and imposed a sentence of ten years and a $750.00 fine, suspended for seven years.² On November 2, 1995, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging numerous violations, including failure to report and failure to pay fees. At a hearing on April 7, 2005,³ appellant pleaded "true" to the State's allegations in the motion to revoke. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court found appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this Court asserting there is no basis for appeal.⁴ We agree, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

1 See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2005).

2 See id. § 12.24 (Vernon 2003).

3 Despite numerous attempts to locate appellant, he was not arrested until 2005.

4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Anders Brief

According to counsel's brief, he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record and has concluded that appellant's appeal is frivolous and without merit.⁵ The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.⁶ In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. In the brief, appellant's counsel states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.⁷ No such brief has been filed. Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, the appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."⁸ We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief. We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.⁹ Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.¹⁰ An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief.¹¹ We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review.¹²