Ricardo Flores Mendoza v. State ( 2007 )

NO. 07-07-0097-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

DECEMBER 13, 2007

______________________________

RICARDO FLORES MENDOZA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 108 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 48,446-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DANBOLD, JUDGE

_______________________________

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ricardo Flores Mendoza, was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon within a penal institution and sentenced to seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The sentence was ordered to begin upon the completion of the sentence the appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense.  We affirm.

Appellant’s 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 court’s 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 raises 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, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

         Justice

Do not publish.