NUMBER 13-13-00122-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
JUAN LERMA JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant, Juan Lerma Jr., was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault
causing serious bodily injury, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02(a) (West 2011). The State also sought an affirmative finding that appellant
used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. See id. § 1.07(11)
(West. Supp. 2011). Appellant pleaded guilty. The trial court accepted the plea and
placed appellant on deferred-adjudication community supervision for a term of ten
years.
In November of 2012, the State filed its second motion to revoke and adjudicate
guilt, alleging five violations of the terms of appellant’s supervision. At the revocation
hearing, the State abandoned the second ground, and appellant pleaded “true” to the
remaining grounds.1 The trial court revoked appellant’s supervision, adjudicated him
guilty of the original offense, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment for eight years
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. This appeal
followed.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Appellant’s court-appointed appellant counsel has filed a brief and motion to
withdraw with this Court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which to base an
appeal. 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, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an
Anders brief 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).
1
The State alleged by the remaining grounds that appellant: failed to report to his parole officer
for a period of several months; failed to complete the full term of community service imposed in the
original judgment; failed to timely report an arrest for public intoxication; and had a urinalysis test that was
positive for marijuana.
2
In compliance with High v. State, 507 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this
Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance
on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant;
and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than a sufficient time has passed, and appellant has not
responded by filing a pro se response.
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). We have reviewed the entire record, including appellant’s initial
guilty plea, the transcript of the revocation hearing, the trial court’s written
admonishments that were signed by appellant, the judgment of the trial court, and
counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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.”). We agree that there
is no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney 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 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. Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s
judgment to appellant within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, and to advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the court of criminal
appeals.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).
______________________
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of October, 2013.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Lerma 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 id. R.
68.3. Any petition for discretion review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. Id. R. 68.4.
4