From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Oct 5, 2005
No. 10-05-00025-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2005)

Opinion

No. 10-05-00025-CR

Opinion delivered and filed October 5, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal fromthe 367th District Court, Denton County, Texas, Trial Court No. F-2003-1158-E.

Affirmed.

Before Cheif Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and, Justice REYNA.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Wright pleaded guilty to first-degree-felony manufacture of methamphetamine. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (Vernon 2003); see also id. § 481.102(6) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Wright appeals. Wright's counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm.

The brief reviews: (1) the trial court's jurisdiction; (2) the indictment; (3) the guilty plea proceedings, including the trial court's admonitions, the voluntariness of the plea, and the sufficiency of the evidence; (4) the effective assistance of counsel; (5) the admissibility of evidence of Wright's prior convictions; and (6) the sentence. Counsel concludes that "any further proceedings on behalf of [Wright] would be wholly frivolous and without arguable merit within the meaning of Anders . . . and its progeny." Although counsel informed Wright of the right to file a brief, Wright did not file one. The State did not file a response.

We must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders at 744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, order) (per curiam), disp. on merits, 25 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd). 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). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436. An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford at 511.

We determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm. Counsel must advise Wright of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.).


Summaries of

Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Oct 5, 2005
No. 10-05-00025-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2005)
Case details for

Wright v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS DON WRIGHT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Oct 5, 2005

Citations

No. 10-05-00025-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2005)