## NUMBER 13 -22-00037-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

BRIAN ALEXANDER VEGA , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
On appeal from the 264th District Court of Bell C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant Brian Alexander Vega pleaded guilty to the offense of b urglary of a
h abitation with intent to commit t heft. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02 (a)(1) . The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. Appellee the State of Texas filed a motion to2 adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded true to all the allegations in the State’s motion. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty of b urglary of a h abitation with intent to commit t heft, and sentenced appellant to ei ght years ’ confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court

appointed counsel has 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 the trial court’s judgment. 1
I. **A NDERS**  B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould 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, 40 6 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

– Edinbu rg 2003, no pet.)) ) ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a docket

- equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.3 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), appellant’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 he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a m otion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing that response, and
to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kell y , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 40 8

– 09

. In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se respons e. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 nothing that would arguably support an appeal

. 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 rais ed in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement s of Texas Rule4 of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’ s counsel has 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

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is or dered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise h im of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
41 1 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
I V

. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 25th day of August, 2022.

2 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 overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.