Court Opinion

ID: 2918860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:09:50.669781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:22.973657
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-97-898-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________

JOE ARTHUR HERNANDEZ,	Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th  District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

	Appellant was indicted for driving while intoxicated, subsequent
offense.  He pleaded nolo contendere and was found guilty by the court. 
The court assessed punishment at confinement for seven years and
placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  The court
also assessed a fine of $1,000.

	Subsequently, a motion to revoke community supervision was
filed alleging violations of four of the conditions of his community
supervision.  The court heard the motion and found "true" to three of
the alleged violations.  Appellant was sentenced to serve seven years
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice.

	Appellant's court- appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he
has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsey v. State, 902
S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App. ­ Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.).  The record
reflected that counsel mailed a copy of his brief to appellant, however,
the record does not reflect that appellant was told of his right to
respond or file a brief.  Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.  We abated the
appeal in order to permit counsel to communicate with appellant and
notify him of his right to file a pro se brief if he desired.  We have
received and filed a copy of the letter which counsel sent to appellant
to notify him of this right.  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."  This
we have done, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
that no error appears therein.

	We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

								NOAH KENNEDY

								Retired Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21st day of December, 2000.

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).