Court Opinion

ID: 2919788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:48:18.121262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:07.640838
License: Public Domain

Hernandez v. SOT

NUMBER 13-00-704-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
____________________________________________________________________

MARCOS ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ,     Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,       Appellee.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
On September 1, 2000, in accordance with a plea bargain, appellant Marcos Esteban Hernandez, pleaded guilty to the
offense of burglary of a habitation.  The trial court found him guilty and, in accordance with the plea bargain, assessed
appellant's punishment at ten years imprisonment.  On September 29, 2000, appellant filed a pro se general notice of
appeal.  The trial court refused to give appellant permission to appeal, but appointed appellate counsel.  This appeal ensued.
As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite them here.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which he states that he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record and
concludes that appellant's appeal is frivolous and without merit.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967).  The
brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds
for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  In the brief, appellant's
attorney also states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No
such brief has been filed.
Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have carefully reviewed the
appellate record and counsel's brief; find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal; and agree with
appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, slip op. at
12, 2001 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, at *16 (Tex. Crim. App. April 4, 2001) (defendant may not appeal voluntariness of
guilty plea in plea-bargained felony case).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 28th day of June, 2001.