eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2010-09

Thomas Ochoa v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NO. 07-10-00036-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS OCHOA, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2008-420,143; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Thomas Ochoa, appeals from a conviction for two counts of indecency with a child and, sentence of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 18 years on each conviction, all confinement to run concurrently.  We affirm.
Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    ,
    18 L. Ed. 2d 498 
    (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.
    Id. at 744-45. 
     In compliance with High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raised a ground that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed this ground and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    ,
    102 L. Ed. 2d 300 
    (1988); Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824 
    (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.