Jesse Alan Disalvio v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-09-0200-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 5, 2010
______________________________
JESSE ALAN DISALVIO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 17,890-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Anders Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Jesse Alan Disalvio (appellant) appeals an order adjudicating him guilty of the
offense of robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to the offense,
and the trial court deferred the adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community
supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State moved the trial court to proceed with
the adjudication of appellant’s guilt. Appellant pled not true to the alleged violations of
the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court held a hearing. Upon
completion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him
to eight years in prison. The trial court certified that appellant had the right to appeal.
Appellant’s counsel has now moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and
representing that she has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for
reversal. The motion and brief illustrate that appellant was informed of his right to
review the appellate record and file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that
any pro se response or brief he cared to file had to be filed by January 19, 2010. To
date, appellant has filed no such response or brief.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed three potential areas for appeal, those being the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a conviction for robbery, the finding he had violated conditions of his
probation, and the admission of a voice mail message to his probation officer.
However, counsel goes on to explain why the issues are without merit.
We have also conducted an independent review of the record to determine
whether there existed reversible error and found none. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review from or
prior to the plea hearing). The evidence presented at the adjudication hearing was
sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that appellant had violated terms and
conditions of his probation. Furthermore, the punishment assessed was also within the
2
range prescribed by law. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§29.02 &12.33(a) (Vernon 2003 &
Supp. 2009).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3