NUMBER 13-01-113-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTIBEDINBURG

ANTONIO CORONADO,                                                       Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

     On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

          Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Castillo

                                   Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, Antonio Coronado, appeals his conviction on two counts of theft.^[1]  We affirm.

On November 6, 2000, appellant pled guilty to the thefts of a television system and a projector, pursuant to a written plea agreement.  Based on the plea and the evidence submitted, the trial court found appellant guilty and accepted the plea agreement on January 10, 2001.  The plea agreement stipulated a sixteenth-month jail term.

Appellant=s court appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal has no meritorious issues to bring forward for review.  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.BCorpus Christi 1995, no pet.).

Counsel states in his brief that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and he has advised him by letter of his opinion that the appeal is without merit but that appellant has the right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  To date, no pro se brief has been filed.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief.  The court stated:  Aonce the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself conduct >a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.= A  Id.  (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).  This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

        LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

         Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

29th day of August, 2002.