Court Opinion

ID: 3101618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:14:40.164434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:40.036543
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-11-00274-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                    AT AMARILLO

                                       PANEL C

                                   MARCH 26, 2012

                          DOUGLAS HOOPES, APPELLANT

                                           v.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

              FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

             NO. D-1-DC-10-202780; HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE

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

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Douglas Hoopes, was convicted of making a false report of an

emergency involving a public service1 and sentenced to 415 days in a State Jail Facility.

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

      1
          See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.06(a)(3) (West 2011).
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 reviewed all 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.

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

judgment is affirmed.2

                                                        Mackey K. Hancock
                                                             Justice

Do not publish.

       2
        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.

                                            2