George Clifford Wilson v. State ( 2007 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00322-CR

No. 10-06-00323-CR

No. 10-06-00324-CR

George Clifford Wilson,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                                    Appellee

From the 371st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 0901468D, 0901473D and 0989293D

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

        In Cause Nos. 10-06-00322-CR and 10-06-00323-CR, Wilson pleaded guilty to two indictments for aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court placed Wilson on deferred-adjudication community supervision.  See Act of May 15, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 459, § 5, sec. (a)(1)(B), 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 893, 898-99 (amended 2003) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2006)); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2006).  In Cause No. 10-06-00324-CR, Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree-felony failure to comply with sex-offender registration requirements.  See Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 668, § 1, art. 62.10(a), 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2253, 2260 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a) (Vernon 2006)); Act of May 29, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1415, § 18, sec. (b), 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4831, 4839-40 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(b)(3) (Vernon 2006)).  The trial court adjudicated Wilson’s guilt and revoked his community supervision in the sexual-assault cases.  The trial court sentenced Wilson to twenty-year concurrent sentences of imprisonment in the sexual-assault cases, and to five years’ imprisonment in the failure-to-register case.  Wilson appeals.  Wilson’s counsel filed an Anders brief.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  We affirm.

        The brief reviews whether Wilson’s sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment, whether one or more of Wilson’s guilty pleas were involuntary, whether Wilson’s sentences were disproportionate to his offenses, and whether Wilson was competent.  Although counsel informed Wilson of the right to file a brief, Wilson did not file one. The State did not file a response.

        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 Wilson 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.), overruled in part on other grounds, Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw filed January 22, 2007.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

        Justice Vance, and

        Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2007

Do not publish

[CRPM]