Sean Aaron Bryant v. State ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00348-CR

No. 10-03-00349-CR

No. 10-03-00350-CR

Sean Aaron Bryant,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the Crim Dist Ct 3 of Dallas Co

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F01-37124-J, F01-37125-J and F01-37126-J

MEMORANDUM Opinion

      Appellant appeals the revocations of his community supervision for debit card abuse.  See Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, sec. 32.31(b), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3645 (amended 2003) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.31(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).  Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We will affirm.

       The brief thoroughly reviews: (1) the trial court’s jurisdiction; (2) pretrial motions; (3) trial objections; (4) effective assistance of trial counsel; (5) the punishment assessed; (6) the sufficiency of the evidence, including Appellant’s plea of true to the allegations in the motion to revoke and his stipulation of evidence; and (7) Appellant’s competency.  Counsel states: “[S]he has diligently reviewed the entire record in these causes and the laws applicable thereto and, in her opinion, the appeals are without merit and wholly frivolous in that the records reflect no reversible error. . . .  [T]here are no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated in any of the cases.” Although counsel informed Appellant of the right to file a brief, Appellant did not file one.  The State has tendered a letter that states, “The State has examined the record and, finding no reversible error, agrees with defense counsel’s assessment.”

       We must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”  Anders at 744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order) (per curiam), disp. on merits, 25 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d).  An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.”  McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10 (1988).  Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.”  Id. at 436  An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on “arguable grounds.”  Stafford at 511.

       We determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm.  Counsel must advise Appellant of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.  See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

        Justice Vance, and

        Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 5, 2005

Do not publish

[CR25]