NUMBER 13-10-00036-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ESPERANZA CASIANO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant, Esperanza Casiano, appeals from her conviction for prostitution, which
was enhanced to a second-degree felony under the habitual felony offender statute.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.02(c) (Vernon Supp. 2010) (making prostitution a state
jail felony if the State proves that the defendant has been convicted of prostitution three
or more times); id. § 12.42 (Vernon Supp. 2010) (elevating a state jail felony to a
second-degree felony if the State proves that the defendant “has previously been finally
convicted of two felonies, and the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that
occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final”). Appellant
pleaded guilty to prostitution and true to the enhancement paragraphs in the indictment,
without a plea bargain from the State. The State introduced evidence of appellant‟s
criminal record and the stipulations signed by appellant. Appellant testified during the
punishment phase that she had a drug problem and engaged in prostitution to support it,
and requested community supervision and drug rehabilitation. The trial court accepted
the plea, found appellant guilty and that the enhancements were true, and sentenced
appellant to ten years‟ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33(a) (Vernon
Supp. 2010) (setting the punishment range for a second-degree felony as not less than
two nor more than twenty years).
Concluding that there are “no arguable grounds for reversal,” appellant‟s
court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack
thereof, of the appeal. We affirm the trial court‟s judgment.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in this case, stating that he could find
no meritorious issues to bring forward for review. Counsel's brief discusses relevant
portions of the record and the applicable law. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not
specifically advance „arguable‟ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide
2
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)
(en banc).
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 is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel certified to this Court that he
forwarded a copy of his motion to withdraw and its supporting brief to appellant with a
letter advising her of her 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 time has passed, and appellant has not
filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all
the proceedings to determine whether the cases are wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record in this case and counsel's
brief, and we 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.
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 that 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) (orig.
proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. 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.) (“If 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 the opinion and the judgment to appellant and to advise
appellant of her 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).
__________________________
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P.47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
13th day of January, 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, 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
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 rule 68.4
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4