Opinion
No. 09-07-420 CR
Submitted on July 28, 2008.
Opinion Delivered August 13, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 94029.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Michael Ray Martin pled guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Martin on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1,500 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Martin's community supervision. Martin pled true to five violations of the terms that had been established for community supervision. The trial court revoked Martin's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and then sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. Martin appealed. Martin's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel provided Martin with a copy of the brief. Martin then filed a pro se brief raising several issues. First, he complains that the trial court improperly revoked his community supervision. Martin claims that his sentence is excessive because this was the first time he had been convicted of a crime for which he had been sentenced to jail. Martin also asserts that because of his diminished capacity at the time of the offense, he should not be held criminally responsible. Martin further argues that his counsel was ineffective, that his plea was involuntary, that the trial court failed to properly admonish him regarding his right to appeal, that his indictment did not sufficiently charge him with a crime, and that he was denied access to the record to properly prepare his pro se brief. As a result, Martin requests this Court "proceed with a full examination of the record to determine if the points are wholly frivolous or are arguable on their merits." In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Although Martin complains that he was denied access to the record to prepare his pro se response, Martin's pleadings and correspondence indicate that he was provided the entire appellate record that is before us. Moreover, Martin has not identified specific records to demonstrate that we do not have all records of the proceedings from the trial court relevant to his appeal. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(1), 34.6(d). Having reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Martin may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Additionally, relief in appropriate cases for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally available through an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).