NUMBER 13-15-00103-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CHARLES WAYNE COOPER, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court
of Aransas County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
The State charged appellant Charles Wayne Cooper with assault family violence,
a third-degree felony, but enhanced in this case to a second-degree felony by virtue of
Cooper’s status as a habitual offender, related to an incident that took place on October
24, 2010 in Aransas County. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01, 12.42 (West,
Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). On June 23, 2011, Cooper pleaded guilty as charged in
the indictment. The trial court sentenced him to eight years imprisonment in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), but suspended the
sentence for eight years with a fine of $1,500.00 and various conditions and placed
Cooper on community supervision.
During the course of his community supervision, the State filed a total of three
motions to revoke against Cooper. On June 14, 2012, Cooper pleaded true to the
allegations in the first motion to revoke and was continued on probation with a condition
to attend the Substance Abuse Punishment Treatment Facility. Cooper later also
pleaded true to a second motion to revoke on April 3, 2014, and was continued on
probation with additional conditions added. The State filed the third motion to revoke,
which is the subject of this appeal, on January 2, 2015. In that motion, the State alleged
Cooper violated several conditions of community supervision including that he: (1)
committed criminal trespass at a location he knew his presence was forbidden from; (2)
appeared in a public place under the influence of alcohol (public intoxication); (3) failed
to successfully complete the Avalon Corpus Christi Residential Transitional Treatment
Center program; and (4) withdrew himself from the Avalon Corpus Christi Residential
Transitional Treatment Center without the consent of the trial court. Cooper pleaded
true to all of the violations and signed a stipulation to the evidence and a judicial
confession on February 12, 2015. He also agreed that the affidavit of the probation
officer was true and correct and waived a pre-sentence investigation being conducted.
As a result, the trial court found the grounds to revoke true, revoked Cooper’s community
supervision, and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment in the TDCJ-ID. Cooper
2
was granted the limited right to appeal. Cooper’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Cooper’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“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.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State and Kelly v. State, Cooper’s counsel carefully
discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s
judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Cooper’s appellate
counsel also notified this Court that he: (1) notified Cooper that he has filed an Anders
brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Cooper with copies of both pleadings; (3)
informed Cooper of his rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to
filing that response,1 and seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is
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
3
frivolous; (4) provided Cooper with a copy of the appellate record; and (5) informed
Cooper that the pro se response, if any, should identify for the Court those issues which
he believes the Court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any
meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford,
813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable
amount of time has passed, and Cooper has not filed a pro se brief.2
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a
subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1)
determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds
no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and
remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable
grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed
those issues on appeal. Id.
We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827–28 (“Due to the nature
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether to
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State,
955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2Cooper’s pro se brief was due on September 14, 2015, thirty days after he received the appellate
record. The district clerk’s office provided this Court with documentation of the date Cooper received the
record. As of October 13, 2015, no pro se response has been received by this Court.
4
of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the
briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals
met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d
at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Cooper’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f 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 counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send
a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Cooper and advise him of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. 3 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).
3 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 date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overrule by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
5
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed the
15th day of October, 2015.
6