Robert Dan Segura, Jr. v. State ( 2010 )

NUMBERS 13-10-176-CR and 13-10-177-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG   

ROBERT DAN SEGURA, JR.                           Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.

On appeal from the Criminal District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas.  

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

          Appellant, Robert Dan Segura, Jr., was indicted in two cases for the offenses of manslaughter and intoxication manslaughter with a deadly weapon that involved two deaths. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08 (a)(1)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Appellant pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter with a deadly weapon in both cases. The trial court accepted the pleas, found Segura guilty and assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement in each case. The sentences were probated and the trial court ordered them to run concurrently. Segura was placed on community supervision for ten years in both cases. In 2009, the State sought to revoke Segura’s community supervision in both cases for failure to: (1) report to his community supervision officer; (2) perform community service hours; and (3) pay various fees. Segura pleaded “true” to all three counts. The trial court entered judgment revoking Segura’s community supervision in both cases and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences in each case to run consecutively. We affirm.

I. Anders Brief

          Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Segura’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); 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), Segura’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Segura, and (3) informed Segura of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Segura has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. Independent Review

          Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

III. Motion to Withdraw

          In accordance with Anders, Segura’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that “[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Segura and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                                                           ROSE VELA 

                                                                           Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

28th day of October, 2010.