I bet the withdrawl was so stupid she cant find any erors if she did not read it!

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal presents no legally non-frivolous question. (1) Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. (2) Counsel has informed the Court that he notified appellant of the following: (1) after reviewing the record, he found no meritorious issues for appeal; (2) he is requesting to withdraw as counsel; and (3) appellant has the right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. (3) Counsel has forwarded appellant a copy of the Anders brief and a copy of his motion to withdraw as attorney of record. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. Is appellant "legally trained"?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window










NUMBER 13-08-00172-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ELIBORIO CANTU, Appellant,


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Kleberg County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
In 2003, appellant, Eliborio Cantu, was indicted for the offense of possession of more than 50 pounds but less than 2000 pounds of marihuana, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a), (b)(5) (Vernon 2003). Cantu entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he pleaded nolo contendere to the indicted offense in exchange for a recommendation by the State that he receive deferred adjudication and be placed on community supervision for five years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp. 2008). At a hearing on May 3, 2004, the trial court accepted the plea agreement, deferred adjudication, placed Cantu on community supervision, and assessed a $5,000 fine.

On January 22, 2007, the State moved to revoke Cantu's community supervision and adjudicate guilt on the grounds that he violated community supervision terms by, inter alia, committing the offense of possession of marihuana on October 12, 2006. Cantu answered "true" to several of the allegations made in the motion to revoke. The trial court granted the State's motion, rendered a judgment of guilt, sentenced Cantu to twenty years' confinement, ordered the sentence to run concurrently with a six-year federal sentence for narcotics trafficking, and assessed a $10,000 fine. Cantu's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm.

I. Anders Brief

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Cantu's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Cantu's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel's motion to withdraw on Cantu, and (3) informed Cantu of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days. (1) See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Cantu has filed a pro se response in which he argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. Independent Review Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, and Cantu's pro se response, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.


III. Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, Cantu's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Cantu and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. (2) See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).




________________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 2nd day of July, 2009.

1. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)).

2. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.

Compliance with Anders v. California another attorney paid by the state to do their easy work

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal presents no legally non-frivolous question. (1) Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. (2) Counsel has informed the Court that he notified appellant of the following: (1) after reviewing the record, he found no meritorious issues for appeal; (2) he is requesting to withdraw as counsel; and (3) appellant has the right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. (3) Counsel has forwarded appellant a copy of the Anders brief and a copy of his motion to withdraw as attorney of record. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. Is appellant "legally trained"?

Send this document to a colleague

Close This Window

NUMBER 13-08-062-CR and 13-08-063-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ADAM CANTU, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela Appellant, Adam Cantu, was convicted of the offense of burglary in February of 2007 and sentenced to eight years' confinement in prison, probated for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon Supp. 2007). In April of 2007, Cantu pleaded guilty to the offense of second degree robbery and was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of eight years' confinement, probated for five years. See id. § 29.02 (Vernon 2003). In November of 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Cantu's probation in both cases, alleging that Cantu had violated his probation by committing a new offense, failing to report to his probation officer, failure to pay supervision fees, and failing to appear in court for a review hearing. In January of 2008, the trial court held a hearing on Cantu's motions to revoke at which time appellant pleaded "true" to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be "true," revoked Cantu's probation, and sentenced him to two concurrent sentences of eight years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Concluding that "there are no meritorious issues for appeal," appellant's counsel filed a brief in which she reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeals. The State agrees with counsel's conclusion that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. We affirm. I. Compliance with Anders v. California Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which she has concluded that there are no appealable issues for this Court to consider. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id. at 744-45; see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, following her review of the court's file and the transcripts, her research, and her correspondence with appellant, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record, including, among other things, a review of grand jury proceedings, pre-trial motions, research and investigation, competency, sentencing, right to present evidence during the guilt/innocence and punishment stages, and right to appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel has informed this Court that she has reviewed the appellate records and concludes there are no arguable grounds for reversal. She has also informed this Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the transcripts in his case and notified appellant of his right to review the records and to file a pro se response to counsel's brief and motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. More than thirty days have passed, and no pro se brief has been filed. II. Independent Review The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the records and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either case. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."). III. Conclusion The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Additionally, appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel is hereby granted. We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of his appeals and of the availability of discretionary review. See In re K.D., S.D., and J.R., 127 S.W.2d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam)). ROSE VELA Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 28th day of August, 2008.