Ricardo Flores Mendoza v. State ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                    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 108TH 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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-07-00097-CR

Filed Date: 12/13/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/8/2015