In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-13-00250-CR
________________________
FELIPE ESCOBAR, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Swisher County, Texas
Trial Court No. A-4309-10-03; Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding
March 10, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
In April 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Felipe Escobar, Jr., pled
guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation1 and was sentenced to five years
deferred adjudication community supervision with conditions. In November 2011, the
State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and proceed to adjudication
alleging Appellant had violated various conditions of the order deferring an adjudication
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2) (West 2011). An offense under this section is a
second degree felony.
of guilt. In December 2011, Appellant pled true to the violations alleged by the State,
and in January 2012, the trial court issued an order continuing Appellant’s community
supervision and imposing additional conditions of supervision. In February 2013, the
State again moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and proceed to
adjudication alleging Appellant had violated various conditions of the original order as
modified. In July, Appellant pled true to the violations alleged by the State. Thereafter,
the trial court granted the State’s motion, issued its judgment adjudicating Appellant’s
guilt, and sentenced him to twelve years confinement and a fine of $1,000. In
presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to
withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1987); In re Schulman, 52
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the
controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied
with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief
to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to review the record and file a pro se response
if he desired to do so,3 and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for
2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967).
3 Pursuant to Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided a copy of
the appellate record to Appellant.
2
discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.4 The Clerk of this Court also
advised Appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief and Appellant
did file a response. The State elected not to file a brief.
When we have an Anders brief by counsel and a pro se response by an
appellant, we have two choices. We may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous
and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Anders,
386 U.S. at 744), or we may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and
remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief
issues. Id. (citing Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman 252 S.W.3d at
409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no
such grounds. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se response, we agree with
counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-
27.
4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must
comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within
five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together
with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this court’s decision is ministerial in nature,
does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4