Court Opinion

ID: 2897188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 00:53:57.675553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:21.718356
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-07-0273-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JUNE 5, 2008

______________________________

ROBERTO ANDRES MARTINEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 187TH DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY;

NO. 2004CR1620; HONORABLE RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Roberto Andres Martinez, pleaded 
nolo contendere
 to the offense of Violating Sex Offender Registration.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court placed the appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years and a fine of $1,200.  The State subsequently filed a motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision.  When advised of the allegations against him, appellant initially pleaded “not true” to all allegations.   At a subsequent hearing, appellant entered a plea of “true” to several of the allegations.  As a result of his plea of true, the trial court assessed punishment of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-State Jail Division for a period of two years.  We affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an 
Anders
 brief and a motion to withdraw.  
Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  
Id
. at 744-45.  In compliance with 
High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the 
Anders
 brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a 
pro se
 response in this matter.  
Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a 
pro se
 response.  Appellant has not filed a response
.

By his 
Anders
 brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.
  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  
See
 
Penson v. Ohio
, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); 
Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted
(footnote: 1) and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

           Justice

Do not publish.  

FOOTNOTES
1: Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a 
pro se 
petition for discretionary review.  
See 
Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.