Corey Dale Lipps v. State ( 2007 )

NUMBERS 13-06-231-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

COREY DALE LIPPS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Corey Dale Lipps, appeals from his plea of "true" to allegations in the State's motion to revoke probation. ⁽¹⁾ _{The court sentenced appellant to seven years' imprisonment. We affirm.}

_{I. Anders Brief}

_{Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court, in which he states that his review of the record "results in an absence of finding any meritorious issues to be advanced in good faith on appeal." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel's brief further discusses three "conceivable issues" but nonetheless concludes that the issues lack merit and any appeal in this case would be frivolous. 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) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), 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 has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509-10. More than thirty days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed.}

_{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 record and find that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.}

_{III. Motion to Withdraw}

_{In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant his motion to withdraw. We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).}

_{_________________________}

_{DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,}

_Justice

_{Do not publish.}

_{Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).}

_{Memorandum Opinion delivered and}

_{filed this the 28th day of June, 2007.}

1.   The underlying offense was a conviction of the third degree felony of assault on a family member. Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and the imposition of the sentence was suspended and probated for five years. On December 19, 2005, the State filed an amended motion to revoke appellant's probation alleging several violations of his probation. Without the benefit of a plea bargain, appellant pleaded "true" to the allegations. On January 20, 2006, the trial court entered an order revoking appellant's probation and sentenced appellant to seven years' imprisonment with credit for time served.