Opinion issued August 25, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00876-CR
NO. 01-13-00877-CR
———————————
BERNARD CARDENAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1365164 and 1365165
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Bernard Cardenas, without agreed punishment recommendations
from the State, pleaded guilty to the offenses of burglary of a habitation, enhanced
by a prior felony conviction, and felon in possession of a firearm, enhanced by a
prior felony conviction.1 The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed
punishment at confinement for fifty-five years for burglary of a habitation and
confinement for twenty years for felon in possession of a firearm, with the
sentences to run concurrently. The trial certified that these cases are not
plea-bargain cases and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed
notices of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has
certified that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his
right to obtain a copy of, and examine the appellate record, and file a response.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 30.02, 46.04(a)(2) (West 2011).
2
In his pro se response, appellant contends that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. He further contends that, during the
plea proceedings, the trial judge made improper comments that demonstrated bias
and prejudice and brought “undue influence to the appellant’s pleading of guilty”
and asserts that the trial judge should have recused himself.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing
court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We
note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
3
We affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.2 Attorney Mark A. Rubal must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
4