Court Opinion

ID: 2895333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 23:51:58.832284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:01.005390
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-06-0241-CR

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                       AT AMARILLO

                                          PANEL C

                                    JULY 25, 2007
                           ______________________________

                          TOMMY JOE VASQUEZ, APPELLANT

                                              V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
                        _________________________________

              FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;

                  NO. 5428; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE
                        _______________________________

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

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child and was

sentenced to twenty years. Appellant’s plea was entered after the trial court had overruled

a motion to suppress appellant’s written statement. The trial court certified appellant’s right

to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress his written statement. 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. 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.

       Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted1 and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

                                                   Mackey K. Hancock
                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

       1
         In granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, however, we remind counsel to insure
that he has complied with the “educational” duty to inform appellant of his right to file a pro
se petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).

                                              2