Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00643-CR
Juan Jose VILLARREAL,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-CR-6418
The Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2013
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Juan Jose Villarreal pled nolo contendere
to the offense of possession of a controlled substance penalty group one, one to four grams. The
trial court, in accordance with the plea agreement, deferred a finding of guilt and placed
Villarreal on community supervision for a period of four years.
The State filed a Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community
Supervision, followed by a First Amended Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke
Community Supervision, alleging Villarreal had violated numerous conditions of his community
04-12-00643-CR
supervision. At the hearing, Villarreal pled true to the violation of not reporting as directed to
his probation supervision officer. The trial court found Villarreal had violated the terms of his
community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to five years confinement.
Villarreal then perfected this appeal.
Villarreal’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 Villarreal was given a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was
informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Villarreal has not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Villarreal’s counsel and affirm
the trial court’s judgment. 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 Villarreal 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.
-2-
04-12-00643-CR
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-