
 
 
NUMBER 13-99-694-CR

COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
 ___________________________________________________________________ 


DAVID ALEXUS HAWKINS , Appellant, 


v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. 
___________________________________________________________________ 


On appeal from the 240th District Court
of Fort Bend County, Texas.
 ____________________________________________________________________ 


O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Yanez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy
 

 Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery.  The jury then assessed his punishment at confinement for
thirty-three years. Appellant's attorney has filed a very detailed Anders brief in which he has concluded that this appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S.738 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of
Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lindsay v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App. - Corpus
Christi 1995). 
 The attorney for appellant has enclosed with his brief a copy of a letter he has sent to appellant to explain what he has
done and why. The letter notes that a copy of the Anders brief is enclosed.  Counsel has also enclosed in his brief a
copy of a motion to have the appellate record made available to appellant and for an extension of time for appellant to
file a pro se brief, which motion is prepared for appellant's signature.  In addition, counsel, in his prayer for relief,
requests an extension of time for requesting the record and for the filing  of a pro sebrief on appellant's behalf.  No pro
se brief has been filed. 
 In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon
receiving a frivolous appeal brief.  The court stated:  "Once the appellate court receives this brief, it must then, itself,
conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  This we have done,
and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and that no error appears therein. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. 
We commend counsel for his professional and detailed examination of the facts of this case and the law which relates
thereto. Enclosed with the brief is counsel's motion to withdraw which is hereby granted. 
 
NOAH KENNEDY 
Justice 




Do not publish. 
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3. 




Opinion delivered and filed 
this the 6th day of July, 2000. 
. 
 
1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to
Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 1998). 
