NUMBER 13-12-00097-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ANNA GONZALES, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 28th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1
Appellant, Anna Gonzales, was convicted of possession of cocaine, a state-jail
felony enhanced to a third-degree felony by two prior convictions. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (West 2010). The district court assessed a two-year
prison sentence. Appellant now seeks to appeal her conviction.
1
The Honorable Rose Vela, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in deciding the case
because her term of office expired on December 31, 2012. “In accordance with the appellate rules, she
was replaced on panel by Justice Nora L. Longoria”. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s court-
appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court,
stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. 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.2d 503, 510 n.3
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 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
A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro
se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the
2
appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible
error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case
to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for
appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed those issues
on appeal. Id.
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.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the
record. 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
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
3
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is
ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to
advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 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
___________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
10th day of January, 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, she 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 discretionary review should comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4