Court Opinion

ID: 2895055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 23:48:05.099614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:46.575332
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-06-0249-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                     AT AMARILLO

                                        PANEL B

                                OCTOBER 4, 2007
                         ______________________________

                      BRIAN EVERETT BRANDON, APPELLANT

                                           V.

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
                       _________________________________

             FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

                  NO. 48,036-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE
                       _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of 10 years after entering

a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to the offense of aggravated kidnapping. The

State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with adjudication alleging that appellant

committed the new offense of assault. The trial court subsequently conducted a hearing

and found the appellant guilty of aggravated kidnapping and, after receiving evidence

regarding punishment, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 15 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. Although, appellant requested and was granted an extension of time 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 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.

                                             3