NUMBER 13-18-00293-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

MICHAEL RIOJAS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 25th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa 

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

A jury convicted appellant Michael Riojas of possession of a controlled substance 

in penalty group 1 (methamphetamine) in an amount between four and two hundred 

grams with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§§ 481.102(6), 481.112. The State alleged Riojas had three prior felony convictions, and 
2

Riojas pleaded true to two of the allegations during the punishment phase of trial, thereby 

enhancing his punishment range for the offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) 

(increasing punishment range to “any term of not more than 99 years or less than 25 

years”). The jury assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ incarceration in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division.1 Riojas appealed, and his courtappointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable 

grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm. 

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Riojas’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 grounds for appeal. See id.; 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 of the record 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.” (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) (en banc).

 

1 At the punishment phase of trial, the State introduced evidence of Riojas’s prior convictions, 

including: (1) delivery of a controlled substance in 1999, (2) assault in 2000, (3) aggravated assault in 

2005, (4) burglary of a habitation in 2005, (5) possession of a controlled substance in 2010, (6) possession 

of a dangerous drug in 2010, (7) assault bodily injury to a family or household member in 2015, (8) 

aggravated assault in 2015, and (9) possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 1 in 2015. 
3

In compliance with High, 573 S.W.2d at 813, and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling 

authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Riojas’s counsel has 

also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Riojas that he has filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Riojas with copies of both filings; (3) informed 

Riojas of his rights to file a pro se response,2to review the record preparatory to filing that 

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 Riojas with a form motion for pro 

se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this Court. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 609 n.23. More than adequate time has passed, and Riojas 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 the record and counsel’s brief, 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 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 Appellant Procedure 47.1.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

 

2 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). 
4

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Riojas’s counsel has asked this Court for permission 

to withdraw. 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.3d 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 the date of this opinion, we order counsel to send a copy of this 

opinion and judgment to Riojas and to advise him of his right to file any 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, 67 (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 the

22nd day of August, 2019.

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Riojas seeks 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 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 Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply 

with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.