NUMBER 13-12-00486-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
KEVIN RAND, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant, Kevin Rand, plead guilty to passing a forged check, a state jail felony.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(b) (West 2011). The court assessed two years’
imprisonment, probated to community supervision for a term of four years. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke, alleging eleven violations of the conditions of
appellant’s supervision.1 Appellant plead “true” to one allegation (that he was behind on
payment of court costs and other fees) and “not true” to the others. The State’s motion
to revoke alleged that appellant had contact on multiple occasions with a woman he
was specifically prohibited from seeing by the terms of his supervision. The State also
alleged that appellant committed the offenses of making terrorist threats, harassment
and multiple counts of assault against that woman and her boyfriend. After conducting
an oral hearing with testimony from multiple witnesses, including appellant, the court
found the allegations to be “true” regarding the woman and “not true” regarding the
woman’s boyfriend. The court revoked appellant’s supervision and assessed the
original sentence of two years in state jail. 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, 407 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.3d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991).
1
This was the fourth motion to revoke filed against appellant by the State. The term of appellant’s
supervision was extended as a result of prior violations.
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. 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 and counsel’s brief, and we
have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d
at 827–28 (“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 have reviewed the record and agree that there is no reversible
error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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
3
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. 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).2
_______________________
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
4th day of April, 2013.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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.
Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court
of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretion review should comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4
Kevin Rand v. State
Combined Opinion