NUMBER 13-14-00671-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ROLAND PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
The State charged appellant, Roland Perez, with aggravated assault, a second-
degree felony, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015
R.S.), related to an incident that took place on January 7, 2013 in Nueces County. On
August 14, 2013, Perez pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of deadly conduct,
a third-degree felony, see id. § 22.05(b) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.). The
trial court deferred adjudication of Perez’s guilt and placed him on community supervision
for two years with various conditions, including: a $2,500 fine of which $1,750 was
suspended if Perez paid $750 within the first year of community supervision; sixty hours
of community supervision; anger management classes; and no contact with the victim.
On July 11, 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Perez’s community supervision
on grounds that he violated several conditions of his community supervision, including
that he failed to: (1) report to his community supervision officer for five consecutive
months; (2) pay his fine, his monthly supervision fee, as well as urinalysis and blood
analysis fee; (3) satisfactorily participate in the Treatment Alternative to Incarceration
Program; and (4) attend anger management classes as directed. Perez pleaded true to
all of the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. As a result, the trial court found the
grounds to revoke true, revoked Perez’s community supervision, and sentenced him to
four years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Perez’s
court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Perez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
2
need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Perez’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court's judgment. Perez’s appellate counsel also notified this Court that he
(1) notified Perez that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided
Perez with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Perez of his rights to file a pro se
response,1 review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary
review if we concluded that the appeal is frivolous; (4) provided Perez with a copy of the
appellate record; and (5) informed Perez that the pro se response, if any, should identify
for the Court those issues which he believes the Court should consider in deciding
whether the case presents any meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly,
436 S.W.3d at 319–20, Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has passed, and Perez has not filed
a pro se brief.
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a
subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1)
determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds
no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and
remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable
grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed
those issues on appeal. Id.
We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. 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 requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d
at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Perez’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
4
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is
ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Perez and to advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed the
30th day of July, 2015.
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
5