Opinion issued August 29, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00039-CR

NO. 01-23-00040-CR

———————————

MARTIN CORONA JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court

Comal County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. CR2021-139 and CR2021-138

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Martin Corona, Jr., pleaded not guilty to the offense of retaliation. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 36.06. After a jury trial, the trial court signed a judgment 

of conviction on the jury verdict finding Corona guilty of retaliation and, based on 
2

the verdict and appellant’s plea of true to the five enhancement paragraphs, the trial 

court sentenced appellant to 60 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along 

with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is 

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is 

unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2006, no pet.). The State waived the opportunity to file a response to the Anders 

brief.

Counsel advised appellant of his right to access the record and provided him 

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised appellant of 

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Appellant requested and was 

granted access to the record and filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 
3

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing 

that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of 

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 

767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable 

grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines 

whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an 

appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by 

filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See 

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney John G. Jasuta must immediately send appellant the required 

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.

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

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).