IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00146-CR
ROBERT ANTONY LUNA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-00524-CRF-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Anthony Luna was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). He was sentenced to 10 years in
prison and a $2,000 fine.
Luna’s appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Luna was informed of how
to obtain a copy of the record, his right to review the record, and his right to submit a
response on his own behalf. Luna took no action to obtain a copy of the record and did
not submit his own response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel reviewed the indictment, the open
plea to the court, voir dire, evidence presented at the punishment phase of the trial,
objections to the evidence, the charge to the jury, and the certification of Luna’s right to
appeal, and evaluates them for potential appellate issues. After the review, counsel has
concluded there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal.
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we
conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436.
An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.
After reviewing counsel's brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Should Luna 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
Luna v. State Page 2
review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en
banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition
and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff.
Sept. 1, 2011). 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. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Luna is granted, and counsel
is discharged from representing Luna. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge, counsel
must send Luna a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2016
Do not publish
[CR25]
Luna v. State Page 3