Keith McKinney v. State ( 2009 )

NUMBER 13-08-133-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

KEITH MCKINNEY, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

Appellant, Keith McKinney, was indicted for the criminal offense of bribery, alleged to have occurred on October 4, 2007. See Tex. Penal Code Ann § 36.02 (Vernon 2006). McKinney pled not guilty and, after a jury trial, was found guilty. On February 7, 2008, the trial court assessed punishment at five years imprisonment. Concluding that "there are no meritorious issues for appeal," appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. The State has not filed a brief. We affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he 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. 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 his review of the court's file and the transcripts, his research, and his 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 he has reviewed the appellate record and concludes there are no arguable grounds for reversal. He has also informed this Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the transcripts in his case and notified appellant of his right to review the record 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 record and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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 appeal is 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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, counsel's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel is hereby granted. We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal 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 19th day of February, 2009.