## NUMBER 13 - 1 6 - 00 036 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

CIRINO PASTOR VILLAFANA - VARGA , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 54 th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justice s Rodriguez, Benavides , and Perkes 1 

### Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes Appellant Cirino Pastor Villafana

- Varga appeals his convict ion of indecency with a child by contact , a second degree felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 2 1. 11 , (West ,

1 Pursuant to a docket

- equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas, the appeal has been transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin

. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 201 5 R .S.).2

Westlaw through 2015 R. S

. ). A fter a ppellant plead ed not guilty, a jury found him guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at thirteen years’ confinement

. A ppellant’s
court

- appointed counsel 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 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 a s it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grou nds 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. Ap p. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

– 19 (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 filed an Anders brief and a mot ion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; ( 3 ) inform ed appellant3

of appellant’s right s to file a pro se response , 2 review the record preparatory to filing that
response , and seek discretionary review if the court of appeals con cludes that the appeal is frivolous; and ( 4 ) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record , lacking only appellant’s signature and the date and including the mailing

a ddress for the court of appeals , with instructions to f ile the motion within ten days

. See
Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 318

– 19, Stafford : 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. No pro se brief was filed.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S

. 75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are file d. After revie wing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and
remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed

2 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 court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in decidin g whether the case p resents 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

those issues o n appeal. Id

. We reviewe d the entire record and counsel’ s brief, and we fin d nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827

– 28 (“ Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of
Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 47.1.” ); Stafford , 813 S.W.2 d at 509. There is no
reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’ s attorney asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See 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 beli eves the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate cour t that the appeal is frivolous.” ) (citation s omitted)). We grant counse l’ s 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 pet ition for discr etionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252

3 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 Court of Criminal Appeals. See id

. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id

. R. 68.4.5

S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

GREGORY T. PERKES Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 2nd day of September , 201 6

.