### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00494- CR NO. 03-14-00495- CR

Isaac Benavidez, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ASTROP CO UNTY, 21ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 15, 265 & 15,2 66 HO NORAB LE CHRI STO P HER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n J anuar y 2014, appellant I saac Be navidez pled g uilty to four counts of intentional

s e r io u s b o d il y in

ju r y to a c h il d a

n d r e c e iv e d te n y e a

r s ’ d e f e r r e d a d ju d ic a ti o n p r o b a ti o n
. S e e T e x. Pe n a l
Code § 22.04; Tex. Code C ri m P ro c. ar t

. 42.12, § 3g

. I n May 2014, upon finding that appellant
had violated cer

tain terms of his probation, the trial court revoke d appellant’ s defe rre d adjudication
and sente nced him to six ty y ear s’ imprisonment on the first count a nd ten y ear s’ imprisonment on

eac h of the rema ining three counts, to run concur rently

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, §23. Ap p ell ant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief me ets the require ments of Anders v. California by
prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord and demons t ra t i n g that there are no arg uable
g rounds to be adva

nced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel

has repr esente d to the Court tha t he provided appellant with copie s of the brie f and a ccompa ny ing
motions to withdraw; advised appellant of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionar y revie w following the resolution of the appea l in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion fo r p ro s e ac cess to the appellate rec ord along with the mailing addre ss of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. Although appellant reque sted and

rec eived the appellate rec ord and additional time to file a p ro s e brief, that time has run and no pro se br ief ha s been f

iled.
We have independe ntly revie wed the rec ord and h av e found nothing that might
arg uably support the appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; B l ed s o e v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the appea l
is frivolous and without merit. We g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw and aff irm the judgme nt of convic tion. 1

No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appe llant wish to seek further revie w of 1 his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, he must either reta in an attorney to file a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in Court of Criminal Appea ls). Any petition for discretionar y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overr ules the last timely motion for rehe aring filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Id. R. 68.3(a). I f the pe tition is mistakenly filed wit h this Court, it will be forwa rded to the Court of Criminal Appe als. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply with the rules of appellate proce dure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court rec eives notice that a petition has bee n filed, the filing s in this case ca use will be for

war ded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
2__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland
Affir med
Filed: Jul y

14, 2015
Do Not Publish

3