Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00183-CR
Richard LARES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006CR10110
Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2015
AFFIRMED
Richard Lares appeals a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the date of the offense listed in
the original judgment. Lares’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 Lares 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 S.W.2d 176, 177
n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Lares filed a pro se brief asserting ineffective
04-15-00183-CR
assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary issues, and a constitutional challenge
to article 21.02(6) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Lares’s pro se brief, we conclude that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). 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 Lares wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, Lares must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Lares
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.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
If an Anders brief is filed in an appeal and the appellant elects to file a pro se brief, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeal has instructed that this court has two choices. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.2d at 826-27. We may “determine that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the court] has reviewed the record and finds no
reversible error.” Id. “Or, [we] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the
trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. at 827. “Only after the issues have been
briefed by new counsel may [this court] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id. If we “were to review the case
and issue an opinion which addressed and rejected the merits raised in a pro se response to an Anders brief, then [the]
[a]ppellant would be deprived of the meaningful assistance of counsel.” Id.
-2-