Rodrigo Talavera v. State ( 2006 )

                NO. 12-05-00390-CR

NO. 12-05-00391-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODRIGO NUNEZ TALAVERA,  §          APPEALS FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Rodrigo Talavera appeals the revocation of his community supervision for the offenses of burglary of a habitation and theft. After revoking Appellant’s community supervision, the trial court sentenced him to terms of imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  Appellant did not file a brief, and the State waived the filing of a brief.  We affirm.

Background

            Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of a habitation¹ and to a separate offense of theft,²

 a state jail felony.  The trial court accepted the plea agreement, found Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment on the burglary charges and two years of imprisonment on the theft charge.  Those sentences were probated, and Appellant was placed on community supervision for ten years and five years respectively. 

            The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision alleging that he had violated certain terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to violating three of the terms of his community supervision.  The trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment for the burglary charges and eighteen months of imprisonment for the theft charge.  These appeals followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous.  Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.

            We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).  We have found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

            As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered August 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Appellate cause number 12–05–00391–CR.

² Appellate cause number 12–05–00390–CR.