






NUMBER 13-05-00777-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 
 

EUGENE BERNARD WASHINGTON, 			  		 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,						           Appellee.
 

On appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

 Appellant, Eugene Bernard Washington, brings this appeal following the
adjudication of his guilt for the offense of credit/debit card abuse and the imposition of a
one year sentence in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
following the revocation of his deferred community supervision.  We agree with appointed
counsel's conclusion that the record fails to show an arguable basis for appeal, and thus
we affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion for withdrawal.  
I.  Compliance with Anders v. California
 Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded
that there is nothing that merits review on direct appeal.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744, (1967).  Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders.  Id. at 744-45; see
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).  In compliance
with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record and referred this
Court to what, in his opinion, are issues which might arguably support an appeal.  See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see
also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.  Counsel informed this Court that: (1) he had diligently read
and reviewed the record and the circumstances of appellant's conviction; (2) he believes
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal; and (3) he forwarded to
appellant a copy of the brief filed in support of his motion to withdraw with a letter informing
appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief.  See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High,
573 S.W.2d at 813.  
II.  Independent Review
	The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a
"frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, (1988); see
Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). 
Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would
arguably support an appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.  We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit.  See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs
and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").  
III.  Conclusion
	The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  Additionally, appellant's counsel's motion
to withdraw as counsel for appellant was carried with the case on May 25, 2006.  See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  Having affirmed the judgment, we now grant counsel's motion
to withdraw.  We order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of
the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam).  
   
					ROGELIO VALDEZ
 Chief Justice

Do not publish.				
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed 
this the 21st day of June, 2007.
