Opinion
No. 05-10-00310-CR
Opinion Filed October 27, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 401-81750-09.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cindy M. Rodriguez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1500 or more, but less than $20,000. The trial court assessed punishment at 700 days in state jail and a $3500 fine. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel notes, among other things, that the evidence in this case is both legally and factually sufficient. The court of criminal appeals' recent decision in Brooks v. State, No. PD-0210-09, 2010 WL 3894613, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (plurality op.), concluded the Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.