### NUMBER 13
- 1 5
- 00 008
- C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

MICHAEL CORTEZ , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 156 th District Court of

Bee County, Texas

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza A jury found a ppellant Michael Cortez guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second

- degree felony offense enhanced to habitual felony
offender status. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02( a)(2) , (b) (West, Westlaw through2

2015 R.S.); id. § 12.42(d) (We st, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). The jury sentenced appellant to forty

- five years’ imprisonment on each count, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. See id. § 12.42(d). Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an
Anders brief. See Anders v . California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. A NDERS B RIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requir ements 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 'a rguable' 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) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 , 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully di scussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; ( 2) provided the appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed the appellant of appellant’s rights to file a pro se response, 1 and review the record preparatory

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 the3

to filing that response; and (4) provided appellant with a pro se motion for access to t he appellate record. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 320 , Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the
issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
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 appe al is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case p resents any meri torious 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.)).4

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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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).
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA , Justice

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 9th day of June, 20 1 6

.

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 discretion ary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. A ny petition for discretiona ry review must be filed with the clerk of the c ourt of criminal a ppeals, s ee id. R. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.