NUMBERS
13-11-00696-CR
13-11-00697-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
REGINO GUAJARDO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 117th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant, Regino Guajardo, pleaded guilty in appellate cause number 13-11-
00696-CR to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, see TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2011), and in appellate cause number 13-11-697-CR, to two
counts of burglary of a habitation, see id. § 30.02 (West 2011). The trial court deferred
adjudication and placed Guajardo on community supervision for a term of ten years.
The State then filed a motion to revoke Guajardo’s deferred adjudication
community supervision in each case, alleging that he had violated various terms of his
community supervision. Guajardo pleaded “true” to several of the alleged violations in
both cases. After hearing evidence in each case, the trial court found that Guajardo had
violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision,
and found him guilty of the offenses. The trial court sentenced Guajardo to forty years’
imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault of a child offense and ten years for
each burglary of a habitation offense. The trial court ordered the sentences to run
concurrently. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in each case,
Guajardo’s appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court stating that after diligently
reviewing the record and researching the law, he has found no reversible error
committed by the trial court and no arguable grounds of error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Although counsel’s briefs do not advance any arguable grounds of error,
they do present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (AIn 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), Guajardo’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
2
there are no errors in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that
he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal;
(2) served copies of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw in each case on
Guajardo; and (3) informed Guajardo of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response in each case.1 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 an adequate period of
time has passed, and Guajardo has not filed a pro se response in either case. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
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 in each case and counsel’s
briefs, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either case.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Guajardo’s attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel in each case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.@ In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
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.) (AIf 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
motions to withdraw in appellate cause numbers 13-11-00696-CR and 13-11-00697-
CR. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a
copy of the opinion and judgments to Guajardo and advise him of his right to file a
petition for discretionary review in each case.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).
__________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
31st day of May, 2012.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Guajardo wish to seek further review of each
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition or
petitions for discretionary review or file a pro se petition or petitions 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 is 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
id. R. 68.4.
4