COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ERIC TORRES, §
No. 08-12-00349-CR
Appellant, §
Appeal from the
v. §
409th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
of El Paso County, Texas
Appellee. §
(TC#20100D05480)
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Appellant Eric Torres pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, the trial court deferred
further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and placed Appellant on ten years’
deferred-adjudication probation. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt based on
alleged violations of the terms of Appellant’s adult probation. At the adjudication hearing,
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations and the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and
adjudicated him guilty. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to five years’ imprisonment.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in conjunction with a motion to
withdraw in which she states that she has thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the record and has
presented a potential point of error on appeal. However, counsel opines that no arguable
grounds for reversal exist and that any appeal would lack merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied,
388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s
brief and was advised of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief. We
have not received a response from Appellant.
In the brief, appellate counsel identifies one potential point of error alleging that the trial
court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for new trial to withdraw pleas because his plea was
rendered involuntary when Appellant was coerced into entering the plea by the trial court and his
attorney. Appellant’s counsel candidly states that there is nothing in the record that could be
construed as coercion by either the trial court or defense counsel and that there is nothing in the
record indicating that Appellant’s plea was anything but voluntary. Counsel then concludes
that the potential point of error is without merit and that no errors were committed that would
merit asking this Court to reverse Appellant’s conviction and sentence.
We may not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief, or those presented in a
pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We may
only consider whether: (1) the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that
we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error; or (2) arguable grounds for appeal
exist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to
address those issues. Id. Having carefully reviewed the record and appellate counsel’s brief,
we find no reversible error. We agree with appellate counsel’s assessment that there are no
2
arguable meritorious grounds for review. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
April 9, 2014
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3