Roosevelt Moton, Jr. v. State

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).