In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Nos. 07-17-00036-CR 

 07-17-00037-CR 

 07-17-00038-CR 

 07-17-00039-CR 

 07-17-00040-CR 

XAVIER RENA SOLIS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 27088-B, Honorable David L. Gleason,

1

 Presiding 

 

November 30, 2017 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

On January 4, 2017, appellant, Xavier Rena Solis, entered an open plea of guilty 

to one count of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle,2and four counts of 

 

1

Senior District Judge sitting by assignment.

2

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04 (West 2016).
2

aggravated robbery.3 Appellant pled “true” to using or exhibiting a deadly weapon 

during the commission of the robbery offenses. After hearing evidence, the trial court 

accepted appellant’s guilty plea, found appellant guilty of each of the charged offenses, 

and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration for the evading arrest or detention 

conviction and thirty-five years’ incarceration for each of the aggravated robbery 

convictions. Subsequently, appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the 

representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel 

certifies that he has diligently reviewed the records and, in his opinion, the records 

reflect no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed 

why, under the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s 

judgments. Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him 

a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to 

file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw 

supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to 

file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant did not, however, file a pro 

se response. The State did not file a brief.

 

3

See id. § 29.03 (West 2011).
3

In the present case, appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to each count alleged in 

the indictment and a plea of “true” concerning the deadly weapon allegations. By his 

Anders brief, counsel discusses three areas where reversible error may have occurred

but concludes that the appeals are frivolous. We have independently examined the 

record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in 

the trial court which might support these appeals but, like counsel, we have found no 

such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 

(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude 

there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We therefore affirm the trial court’s 

judgments and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

 

4

Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with 

Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgments together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, 

does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.