Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00288-CR
Ricardo Roger MORALES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13-1384-CR-A
The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 21, 2015
AFFIRMED
Ricardo Roger Morales was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated (habitual) and
sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. Morales’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing
a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Morales with a copy
of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols
v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924
04-14-00288-CR
S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Morales obtained a copy of the
record and filed a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Morales’s pro se brief, we agree that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. 1 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate
counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177
n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Morales wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Morales must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or Morales must 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.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Do Not Publish
1
Because we have determined that the appeal is frivolous, we do not address any of the issues raised by Morales in
his pro se brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
-2-