Court Opinion

ID: 2919397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:17:17.599349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:30.293917
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-99-577-CR 
COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI 
___________________________________________________________________ 

JACOB BORREGO , Appellant, 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. 
___________________________________________________________________ 

On appeal from the 319th District Court 
of Nueces County, Texas. 
____________________________________________________________________ 

O P I N I O N 

Before Justices Dorsey, Chavez, and Kennedy(1) 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

Appellant was originally placed on probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Subsequently, he pleaded "true" to
the allegations in a motion to revoke his probation. The trial court revoked his probation and assessed punishment at ten
years confinement. 
Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the record in the trial court and the
law applicable thereto and that there are no grounds for error upon which an appeal can be predicated. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 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). In the brief, counsel states that he has served a copy of the brief on
appellant and has informed appellant, by letter, that it is his view that the appeal is without merit but that he (appellant) has
the right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Counsel further states that appellant has been provided with a copy of
the transcript and statement of facts from the hearing below. The brief is dated November 5, 1999, which is approximately
90 days prior to the drafting of this opinion. No pro se brief has been filed. 
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." Id. at 84. We have done
this and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. Counsel has also filed herein a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion is
granted. 
NOAH KENNEDY 
Justice 

Do not publish.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

Opinion delivered and filed 
this the 9th day of March, 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).