NUMBER 13-15-00092-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ARMANDO GUERRA LOYA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 206th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
In 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Armando Guerra Loya pled guilty
to deadly conduct, a third-degree felony offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.05
(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). The trial court sentenced Loya to five years’
imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Loya’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support
thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found
no non-frivolous issues. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel's brief meets the
requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation showing why
there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en
banc).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1)
notified Loya that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Loya
with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Loya of his rights to file a pro se response,1
to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek review if we conclude
that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) supplied Loya with a form motion for pro se access to
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2
the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Loya
filed a pro se brief that we construe to purport to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and Loya’s pro se
response, and we have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Loya’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.)
(“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the
appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to
withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)
(citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.
We order counsel to send, within five days of this opinion, a copy of the opinion
3
and judgment to Loya and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary
review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex
parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
5th day of November, 2015.
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Loya wish to seek further review 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 date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4