Dominique Uribe v. State ( 2006 )

                             NUMBER 13-04-00520-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

DOMINIQUE URIBE,                                                                         Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                    Appellee.

    On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

               Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

                         Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

A jury found appellant, Dominique Uribe, guilty of four counts of indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at (1) twelve years= imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 for Count 1, (2) five years= imprisonment for Count 2, (3) five years= imprisonment for Count 3, and (4) eight years= imprisonment for Count 4.  All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

                                                            A.  Anders Brief

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief asserting there is no basis for this appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  In his brief, counsel states that he has reviewed the clerk=s record and reporter=s record and has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit.  See id.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no errors in the trial court=s judgment. In the brief, appellant=s counsel certifies that he has informed appellant of appellant=s right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No such brief has been filed. 

                                         B.  Independent Review of Record

Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, the appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2004, no pet.).  We have carefully reviewed the appellate record, and counsel=s brief.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827‑28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm this appeal.       

                                                        C.  Anders Counsel

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  An appellate court may grant a counsel=s motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief.  Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case).  We grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.

We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 8th day of June, 2006.

---

^[1] Because the issues of law presented by this case are well settled and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite the law and facts in this opinion except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.