Gilbert Acosta v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00409-CR Gilbert ACOSTA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR3901W Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 27, 2013 AFFIRMED On May 16, 2012, pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Gilbert Acosta was sentenced to twenty months of confinement, his sentence was then suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for a period of four years. On May 29, 2012, the State filed a motion to revoke Acosta’s community supervision because Acosta had been charged with criminal trespass to private property and because Acosta had failed to report to his probation officer. On June 13, 2012, Acosta pled true to both violations. After a hearing, the trial court found that Acosta had violated conditions of his community supervision. The trial court therefore revoked Acosta’s 04-12-00409-CR community supervision and sentenced him to six months in a state jail facility. Acosta timely filed a notice of appeal. His court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which he raises two arguable points of error, but nonetheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw, and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Acosta did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. 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 later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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. Karen Angelini, Justice Do not publish -2-