NUMBER 13-15-00008-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MICHAEL CORTEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 156th 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 appellant 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 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through 
2

2015 R.S.); id. § 12.42(d) (West, 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. ANDERS BRIEF

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 requirements 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 'arguable' 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 discussed 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 the 
3

to filing that response; and (4) provided appellant with a pro se motion for access to the 

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. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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 appeal 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 presents any meritorious 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 TEX. R. APP. 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.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

9th day of June, 2016.

 

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 discretionary 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the court of criminal appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and should 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.