Miguel Estrada v. State ( 2016 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MIGUEL ESTRADA, §
No. 08-15-00275-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
v. 34th District Court
§
of El Paso County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
(TC# 20140D03119)
§
Appellee.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Miguel Estrada appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
enhanced by two prior felony convictions. After a jury found Appellant guilty, the trial court
found the enhancement paragraphs true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment
for a term of twenty-six years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 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.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the
Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to
Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and
to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.
2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a form motion for
access to the appellate record. Appellant has been provided access to the record and he has filed
a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se brief. We
agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that
might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the issues advanced in Appellant’s
pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice
September 14, 2016
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-