Court Opinion

ID: 2896856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 00:49:23.85475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:33.628462
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-07-0287-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                     AT AMARILLO

                                        PANEL A

                                 AUGUST 11, 2008
                         ______________________________

                             ARMANDO DIAZ, APPELLANT

                                            V.

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
                       _________________________________

            FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

                 NO. 18404-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE
                       _______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Armando Diaz, pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child. The trial

court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of

seven years. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant alleging a number

of violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. Appellant pleaded true

to five of the allegations contained in the State’s motion to adjudicate. After receiving

appellant’s plea of true, and with consent of appellant, the trial court conducted a single

hearing on the remaining allegations contained in the State’s motion to proceed and the
issue of punishment. Appellant was sentenced to 10 years in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       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.

                                              2
       Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.1

                                                  Mackey K. Hancock
                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

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

                                              3