NUMBER 13-12-00257-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

HOMERO ERASMO GARZA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 206th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant, Homero Erasmo Garza, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his 

community supervision and sentencing him to a two-year prison term for the offense of 

driving while intoxicated with two prior convictions, a third-degree felony. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(b)(2) (West Supp. 2011). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s courtappointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, 
2

stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. On its face, counsel’s brief appears to meet 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) (“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 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), appellant’s counsel has stated that, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he 

has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) 

served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) 

informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.1 See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant has not responded by filing a timely pro se brief.

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 entire record and counsel’s brief and find no 

arguable grounds for appeal. 

 

1

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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. 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.) (“[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 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.2 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, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

_______________________

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

21st day of March, 2013.

 

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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 

Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the 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.