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 1 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.
Appellant=s 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
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (Vernon 2009).
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 court=s 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, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed. 2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
2