Opinion issued April 9, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NOS. 01-11-00311-CR
01-11-00312-CR
———————————
RANFERY PALACIOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1177546 and 1191389
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Harris County grand jury indicted Ranfery Palacios for the first-degree
felony offenses of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 20.04, 29.03 (West 2011). Palacios pleaded guilty to the
crimes charged without an agreed recommendation from the State as to
punishment. After ordering a pre-sentence investigation and considering the PSI
report, the trial court found Palacios guilty of both offenses and assessed a
sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for each offense, to run concurrently.
Palacios’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from
Palacios’s representation on appeal, stating that a complete review of the record
has revealed no arguable grounds of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Palacios has not submitted a pro se reply brief.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and, having found no reversible error,
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Background
The indictments allege that in August 2008, Palacios exhibited a firearm
while in the course of committing a theft of property from Rosita Gonzales, and he
abducted Gonzales with the intent to prevent her liberation by threatening her with
a firearm. Palacios entered open pleas of guilty to the felony offenses charged.
The trial court admonished Palacios of the consequences of his pleas, including the
range of sentencing applicable to a first-degree felony conviction, and withheld a
finding of guilt until completion of the pre-sentence investigation report. The
record reflects that Palacios had the opportunity to consult with counsel before
2
entering his pleas and that he knowingly waived his right to trial. The sentences
imposed fall within the applicable range of punishment.
Discussion
Counsel’s brief meets the minimum requirements of Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds of error on
appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Palacios, requested permission to withdraw
from the case, and notified Palacios of his right to review the record and to file a
pro se response.
When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed
attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine
that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and
not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether case is
“wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). Any pro se response is also considered. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Thus, our role in this Anders appeal, which consists of reviewing the entire
record, is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. See id.
3
at 827. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal
and remand the case to the trial court to allow the court-appointed attorney to
withdraw. See id. Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all
arguable grounds for appeal. See id. If we determine that arguable grounds for
appeal do exist, Palacios is entitled to have new counsel address the merits of the
issues raised. See id. “Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may
[we] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id.
On the other hand, if our independent review of the record leads us to
conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s
judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–28. Palacios may
challenge the holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning
for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6.
Following Anders and Bledsoe, we have reviewed the record in each case as
well as Palacios’s appointed counsel’s Anders brief. We conclude that no
reversible error exists. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this
appeal, send appellant a copy of this opinion and judgment, and notify
appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court
of Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at
827; Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens
4
Conclusion
We affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant appointed counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no
pet.).
5