COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
JUAN GILBERT, No. 08-11-00360-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from
§
v. 372nd District Court
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Tarrant County, Texas
§
Appellee. (TC # 1086605D)
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Juan Gilbert appeals his conviction of failure to register as sex offender. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Appellant entered an open plea of guilty in 2008 and the trial court assessed his
punishment at imprisonment for ten years. The court suspended the sentence and placed
Appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to
revoke, alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The
State agreed to recommend a six year term of imprisonment in exchange for a plea of true, but
Appellant rejected that offer and entered an open plea of true. The trial court found the
allegations true and imposed the original sentence of ten years in TDCJ-ID.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without 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 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.”); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant,
and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief, as well as
correspondence related to the pro se brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A
discussion of the contentions advanced in the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence
of the state. The judgment is affirmed.
March 28, 2013
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-