Court Opinion

ID: 2918892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:10:18.741638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:51.898515
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-99-616-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________

ISMAEL CANTERA,	Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Seerden, Rodriguez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

	Appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault.  The
indictment further alleged that appellant had previously been convicted
of burglary.  Appellant was found guilty by a jury and the trial court
assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years.

	Appellate counsel has filed a very thoroughly researched brief in
which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without
merit.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  The brief meets the
requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of why
there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902
S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App. ­ Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.).

	Appellate counsel herein has included in his brief a statement that
he is serving a copy of the brief on appellant and has informed appellant
of his right to review the record and to file a brief in his own behalf with
this court.  We have not received a pro se brief from appellant.

	In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court
discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a
"frivolous appeal" brief.  The Court stated: "Once the appellate court
receives this brief, it must then, itself, conduct a full examination of all
the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  This
we have done, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
that no error appears therein.

	We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

								NOAH KENNEDY

								Retired Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 7th day of December, 2000.

1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann.
§ 74.003 (Vernon 1998).