## NUMBER 13 - 2 3 - 0 00 2 6 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

SANTOS REINA , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
On appeal from the 25th District Court of Guadalupe County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
A ppellant Santos Reina pleaded guilty to the offense of murder, a first

- degree felony , and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph in the indictment for a prior felony conviction

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § § 19.02 ; 12.42(c)(1)

. Following trial on punishment, t he jury sentenced appellant to thirty

- five year s’ incarceration in the2 Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. Se e id. § 12.42(c) (1)

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
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 h is review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould 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, 40 6 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“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

– Edinburg 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

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel c arefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that he : (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion

1 This case was transferred from the Four th Court of Appeals in San Antonio to this Court pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.3 to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of h is right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing th at response, and
to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature and the date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 40 8

– 09

. Appellant did not file 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 case 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 nothing that would arguably supp ort an appeal

. 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 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 s of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days from 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 h im of h is right to file a petition for4 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).
I V

. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment

. DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 20th day of July , 202 3

.

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 discreti onary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas 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.