NUMBER 13-20-00419-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
DOMINGO TREVINO III, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court
of San Patricio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Appellant Domingo Trevino III appeals a judgment revoking his probation for
assault of a family/household member, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.01(b)(2)(A). The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years’ imprisonment. See id.
§ 12.34. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that
there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record
yielded no grounds of reversible 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) (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.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510
n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Trevino’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that
she (1) notified appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw;
(2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights
to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the
appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a copy of the record. 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
2
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and appellant has not
filed a pro se response.
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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire record, and we have found
nothing that would support a finding of 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 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.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel. 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.)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s
opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to
appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 1 See TEX.
1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant seeks 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 overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition
for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3
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).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
8th day of July, 2021.
4
Domingo Trevino III v. the State of Texas
Combined Opinion