Cody Wayne Bordes v. State

NUMBERS 13-11-00648-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CODY WAYNE BORDES
A/K/A CODY BORDES, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 252nd District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant, Cody Wayne Bordes a/k/a Cody
Bordes, pleaded guilty to burglary of a building, a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 30.02 (West 2003). The Court accepted the plea agreement and placed appellant
on deferred-adjudication community supervision for a period of three years.
Appellant thereafter failed to comply with at least three of his community-supervision
requirements by committing theft, failing to report to the community supervision department
of Jefferson County, and testing positive for cocaine by-products. The State filed a motion
to revoke appellant’s community supervision and adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded true
to the first three alleged violations of his community supervision, and the State abandoned
the remaining alleged violations. After receiving evidence, the trial court revoked
appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to
two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—State Jail Division.
2
The trial court also ordered appellant to pay $1,530.00 in administrative fees, $619.00 in
court costs, and $1,044.48 in restitution.
Appellant timely perfected appeal and, as discussed below, his court-appointed
counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.1
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s
court-appointed appellate counsel 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), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
reversible error 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 appellant; and (3) informed appellant
1
Pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas, this case is before
us on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West 2005).
3
of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.2 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 appellant 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 we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827–28 (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. There is no reversible error in
the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney 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.) (“[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from
representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must
2
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the
rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting
Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4
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 this opinion and this
Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary
review.3 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).
Gregory T. Perkes
Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
15th day of March, 2012.
3
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for
en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Effective September 1,
2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
5