Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00566-CR
Joseph ALMANZA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR10451
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 9, 2014
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant Joseph Almanza was indicted for the offenses of continuous violence against
family (habitual) and injury to a child (habitual). Almanza waived his right to a jury trial and the
matter was heard by the trial court. After considering the evidence, the trial court found Almanza
guilty of both offenses and sentenced to him to twenty-five years’ confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for each offense. The trial court ordered
the sentences to run concurrently. Almanza then perfected this appeal.
04-13-00566-CR
Almanza’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is without merit. The brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Counsel provided proof Almanza was given a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was
informed of his right to file his own brief. Almanza filed a brief on his own behalf in which he
alleges the following errors: (1) trying multiple cases at the same time or listing separate charges
in the same indictment was prejudicial and violated his constitutional right to a fair trial; (2) his
trial attorney could have requested a change of venue, but refused without his consent; (3) the
indictment was invalid in that it failed to give him notice of the charges against him so as to allow
him to prepare a defense; (4) he was entrapped; (5) the evidence was legally insufficient to support
his convictions; (6) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (7) the trial court violated his
Due Process rights by “improper conduct during the trial”; and (8) the trial court erred in admitting
certain photographs and testimony in violation of Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire
record and determine (1) the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion explaining there is no
reversible error, or (2) there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion remanding the
cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (holding court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any
arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Almanza’s brief and find no
reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See id. We therefore grant the
motion to withdraw filed by Almanza’s appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
-2-
04-13-00566-CR
See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v.
State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Almanza wish to seek further review of
this case in 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 after either the day our judgment is rendered
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 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 must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-3-