Opinion filed May 2, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00365-CR

__________

JUAN ISAIAS CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-7102

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Juan Isaias Cortez pleaded guilty in November 2011 to sexual assault. The 

trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a term of ten years. The State subsequently filed a 

motion to adjudicate alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of 

community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on November 

30, 2012. Appellant pleaded “not true” to all of the alleged violations. At the 
2

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all of the alleged violations to be 

true, adjudicated appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his

punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years and a fine of $1,000. We dismiss the 

appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the 

appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and 

advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s 

brief. A response has not been filed.1

 Court-appointed counsel has complied with 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie 

v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 

137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and 

Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the 

appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal 

cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days 

after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and 

judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition 

 1

By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief. 
3

for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant 

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

May 2, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.