NUMBER 13-10-00044-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
THOMAS PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 347th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Appellant Thomas Perez appeals his conviction for retaliation, a third-degree felony.
See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 36.06 (Vernon 2003). At trial, appellant testified in his own
defense and admitted he assaulted the complainant. Following the jury trial on
guilt-innocence, the trial court received evidence on punishment and sentenced appellant to
six years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal, and as discussed below, his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders
brief. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The evidence at trial showed that appellant and several cohorts stole pallets from the
complainant during a July fourth celebration at a public beach. The pallets were being used
to make a bonfire. The complainant called the police who arrived at the scene and asked
appellant and his group to leave the area. Appellant and his group departed from the area,
but returned shortly after the police left.
At trial, appellant testified in his own defense, admitting he assaulted the complainant.
On cross examination, appellant admitted he had multiple prior felony convictions and at
least one prior misdemeanor conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude. Appellant and
the three other men were tried together as co-defendants, and all were found guilty.
II. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant‟s
court-appointed appellate counsel has 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).
2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), appellant‟s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there
are no reversible errors 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.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 appellant has not filed a pro
se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
III. 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 have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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.
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the 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
IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant‟s attorney has 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.) (noting that “[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 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.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).
______________________
Gregory T. Perkes
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
24th day of February, 2011.
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 that was overruled by this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will
be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. 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