Jesus Edwardo Castaneda v. State

Castaneda v. SOT NUMBER 13-01-187-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI ____________________________________________________________________ JESUS EDUARDO CASTANEDA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Jesus Eduardo Castaneda, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at five years imprisonment and a $4,200 fine. The trial court suspended appellant's prison sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant's community supervision. After appellant pleaded true to all six of the State's allegations, the trial court revoked his community supervision and ordered that appellant serve the original sentence of five years imprisonment. It was also ordered that appellant's sentence run consecutively with a federal court sentence. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which he states that he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record and concludes that appellant's appeal is 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 showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In the brief, appellant's attorney also states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed. Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief; find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal; and agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford, 813 S.w.2d at 511. With respect to any issues concerning appellant's plea of guilty or original sentence, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (requirements for notice of appeal of a plea-bargained felony guilty plea); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 23(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Heiskell v. State, 522 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Davis v. State, 977 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.) (appeal for review of conviction and punishment must be taken at time of imposition of sentence of community supervision); see Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a); Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (requirements for timely notice of appeal). With respect to any issues concerning the revocation of appellant's community supervision, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Mitich v. State, Nos. 13-0-257-CR & 13-00-258-CR (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi May 3, 2001, no pet. h.) (requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3) do not apply to appeal from revocation of community supervision). FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3. Opinion delivered and filed this the 9th day of August, 2001.