In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00204-CR

 

JOE PEREZ MARTINEZ, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the Hall District Court 

100th County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 3905, Honorable Dale Rabe, Jr., Presiding 

September 18, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed 

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to a plea of guilty, Appellant, Joe Perez 

Martinez, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years for 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, enhanced by a prior felony.

2

 Less than two 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(a)(2), 12.42(b). 
2

years later, the State moved to adjudicate guilt based on numerous violations of the 

conditions of community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant 

pleaded true to some but not all of the allegations of violations.3 After hearing testimony 

from Appellant’s supervision officer, Appellant, and several character witnesses, the trial 

court found Appellant violated the conditions of community supervision, adjudicated him 

guilty of the original offense, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed 

a sentence of forty years.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record, and in her opinion, it reflects no potentially 

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling 

authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated she has complied with the 

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to 

Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and 

(3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.

4

 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to 

3 Given Appellant’s pleas of true, the State waived the allegations to which he pleaded not true.

4 Notwithstanding that 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 judgment together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to 

send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 
3

exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 

n.23. He filed a contentious response proclaiming his innocence and complaining of “dirty 

cops” and “evil” district attorney and judge breaking laws and violating his rights. He also 

complains of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State did not favor us with a brief. 

ANALYSIS

Appellant’s pleas of true alone support the trial court’s order. Moses v. State, 590 

S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The original charge against Appellant, a second 

degree felony, was enhanced to punishment for a first degree felony. The forty-year 

sentence is within the statutory range. Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d). 

When we have an Anders brief by counsel and a pro se response by an appellant, 

we have two choices. We may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an 

opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; Bledsoe 

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 

744), or we may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause 

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief issues. Bledsoe, 178 

S.W.3d at 826–27 (citing Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are 

any non-frivolous issues which might support this appeal. 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;

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.
4

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 

S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and 

Appellant’s pro se response, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal of 

Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Alex Yarbrough

 Justice

Do not publish.