Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-14-00916-CR & 04-14-00917-CR
Eberto A. MENDEZ,
Appellant
v.
The State
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2009CR2760 & 2011CR5500
Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 7, 2015
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
On March 30, 2010, Eberto A. Mendez pled guilty to the charge of injury to a child.
Adjudication of guilt was deferred and Mendez was placed on community supervision for a period
of three years. Subsequently, the term of Mendez’s community supervision was extended for two
years.
On October 3, 2011, Mendez pled no contest to the charge of family violence assault.
Mendez was sentenced to six years in prison, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed
on community supervision for six years.
04-14-00916-CR & 04-14-00917-CR
On October 17, 2014, the State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke Mendez’s community
supervision in the first case, and moved to revoke Mendez’s community supervision in the second
case. The trial court heard the motions at the same hearing. At this hearing, Mendez pled “true” to
violating a condition of his community supervision as alleged in the motions. In the first case, the
trial court signed a judgment adjudicating guilt and sentenced Mendez to five years’ imprisonment.
In the second case, the trial court signed a judgment revoking Mendez’s community supervision
and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The judgments reflect that the sentences are to run
concurrently. Mendez appealed both judgments.
Mendez’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in each case in which he concludes that
each appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that Mendez was provided with a
copy of the briefs and motions to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the
record and file his own briefs. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). No pro se brief
has been filed. We have reviewed the record in each case and counsel’s briefs, and we agree that
these appeals are frivolous and without merit. The trial court’s judgments are affirmed, and
counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mendez 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 later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date
the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.
-2-
04-14-00916-CR & 04-14-00917-CR
R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Karen Angelini, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-
Eberto A. Mendez v. State
Combined Opinion