


NUMBER 13-00-024-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________


KIRMON LEMONS,	Appellant,


v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 24th District Court
of De Witt County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________


O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Kennedy(1)
Opinion by Justice Kennedy

	Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to injury of a child and was
assessed punishment of twenty years confinement and a five thousand
dollar fine.  Although appellate counsel is of the opinion that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit, he presents two issues which, arguably,
could support an appeal.  They are:

	Issue 1:	The judgment of the trial court is void because
appellant's plea of "no contest" is not a plea recognized
by article 27.02, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.


	Issue 2:	The trial court erred by refusing to allow appellant's
witness at punishment to express his opinion as to
what the proper punishment should be.


	In support of issue one, appellant cites article 27.02 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure to require that a defendant's plea be guilty,
not guilty, or nolo contendere.  The phrase "nolo contendere" is Latin
meaning "I will not contest it."  Black's Law Dictionary, 1048 (6th Ed.
1990).  By pleading "no contest," appellant has merely pleaded the
English translation of the Latin phrase.  Odom v. State, 962 S.W.2d 117
(Tex. App. ­ Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd.).

	In regard to issue two, this Court has held that the argument that
a witness may recommend a particular punishment to the trier of fact
has been soundly rejected.  Hughes  v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196
(Tex. App. ­ Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd).

	Appellate counsel has certified that he has sent a copy of his brief
to appellant and he encloses in his brief a copy of a cover letter which
was sent to appellant advising him of his right to raise any points he
chooses.  This letter was sent in March of this year.  No pro se brief has
been filed.

	To conform to the requirement of Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have conducted a full examination of all the proceedings and
conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

	We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

								NOAH KENNEDY

								Retired Justice


Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).


Opinion delivered and filed

this the 14th day of December, 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).

