MANUEL GARCIA APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

MANUEL GARCIA, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

NO. 07-10-00316-CR

Decided: February 28, 2011

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Manuel Garcia, was convicted of credit card abuse 1 and fraudulent use or possession of identifying information 2 and was sentenced by the convicting jury to confinement for two years in a State Jail Facility with a fine of $5,000 on the credit card abuse case and confinement for 15 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a fine of $10,000 on the fraudulent possession of identifying information case.   Appellant gave notice of appeal in the credit card abuse case.3  We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967).   In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.   In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.   Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).   The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.   Appellant has not filed a response.   By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.   We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.   See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988);  Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).   We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.4

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.2009)..  FN1. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.2009).

FN2. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b)(1) (West Supp.2009)..  FN2. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b)(1) (West Supp.2009).

FN3. No notice of appeal is found in the fraudulent possession of identifying information case and, accordingly, this Court's jurisdiction has not been invoked on any matters pertaining to such conviction..  FN3. No notice of appeal is found in the fraudulent possession of identifying information case and, accordingly, this Court's jurisdiction has not been invoked on any matters pertaining to such conviction.

FN4. Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.   See Tex.R.App. P. 48.4..  FN4. Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.   See Tex.R.App. P. 48.4.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Copied to clipboard