James Wickline v. State

NUMBER 13-11-00308-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG JAMES WICKLINE, Appellant, v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant James Wickline entered a plea of guilty, without a plea bargain, to a two-count indictment for aggravated assault, a second degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 22.02 (West 2003). The trial court found Wickline guilty and sentenced him to twelve years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Wickline received credit for time served.

Concluding that "there is no justiciable issue upon which an appeal may be predicated," counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant=s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court stating that he has studied the entire appellate record and has found no reversible error. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no non-frivolous grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (AIn 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) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has provided a copy of the brief and the record to appellant. Counsel has also informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, 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) (ADue 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, counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. 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.) ("If 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.2 Within five days of the date of this Court=s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review. 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).

IV. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 20th day of October, 2011.