Court Opinion

ID: 2921159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 01:52:06.963135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:41.413267
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-01-589-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________

ROOSEVELT MOTON, JR. , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the Criminal District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Kennedy (1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

 Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of Anders 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, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.).
 Counsel has certified that he has served a copy of his brief and the reporter's record on appellant at the time of their filing. 
He further states that he has informed appellant by accompanying letter that it is his opinion that the appeal is without merit
and that he personally has the right to view the record and file a pro se brief raising any ground of error or complaint which
he may desire.  Counsel also certifies that he has filed a motion to extend the time to file a brief, requesting that the
appellant be afforded an additional thirty days from the date he may receive the record herein or ninety days from the date
of filing of said motion, in order to file a pro se brief if he so chooses.  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 80.  This we have
done, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and that no error appears therein. 
 We grant the attorney's motion to withdraw.  We order appellant's attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this
appeal and of the availability of discretionary review.   See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
 We AFFIRM  the judgment of the trial court.
 
NOAH KENNEDY
Justice

Do not publish .
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed
this 27th day of February, 2003.
 
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).