Roel Ernesto Vasquez v. State

NUMBER 13-04-478-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ROEL ERNESTO VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez A jury found appellant, Roel Ernesto Vasquez, guilty of aggravated robbery (1) and aggravated kidnapping. (2) The jury assessed punishment at forty years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for aggravated robbery, and fifty years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for the aggravated kidnapping offense. (3) Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this Court asserting there is no basis for appeal. (4) We agree, and affirm the trial court's judgment. Anders Brief According to counsel's brief, he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record and has concluded that appellant's appeal is frivolous and without merit. (5) The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. (6) In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. On July 8, 2005, we abated this appeal to allow counsel to notify appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief if he so desired. (7) We also ordered counsel to provide this Court with a copy of his notification to appellant. Counsel has filed a copy of his notification informing appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, the appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." (8) We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief. We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. (9) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Motion to Withdraw In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. (10) An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. (11) We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. (12) _______________________ LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ, Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Memorandum opinion delivered and filed this the 21st day of September, 2006. 1. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). 2. See id. § 20.04. 3. See id. § 12.32. 4. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 5. See id. 6. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). 7. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). 8. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). 9. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 10. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 11. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). 12. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).