In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-17-00462-CR
JAVIER PALACIOS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 73,827-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding
March 27, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
On December 19 and 20, 2017, appellant, Javier Palacios, was tried for the offense
of failure to comply with registration requirements.1 Appellant pled not guilty and the case
proceeded to a jury trial. After hearing evidence, the jury found appellant guilty and, after
hearing punishment evidence, sentenced appellant to forty-five years’ incarceration in the
1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018).
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed
his notice of appeal. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the
representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel
certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects
no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under
the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the
motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se
response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant filed a pro se response in which he
identified communication issues between himself and trial counsel. However, none of
these complaints are reflected in the record. The State did not file a brief.
In the present case, a jury found appellant guilty of the offense of failure to register,
and sentenced him to forty-five years’ incarceration. By his Anders brief, counsel
discusses where in the record reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the
appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether
there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might
2
support this appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
After carefully reviewing the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro
se response, we conclude that there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2 See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
2 Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall, within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature,
does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3