### NUMBER 13 - 1 6 - 00 003 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

JOE HENRY GARCIA , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides On February 2, 2015, appellant Joe Henry Garcia pleaded guilty to the offense of

sexu al assault of a child, a second degree felony, s ee T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.011 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) , and was placed on ten years ’ deferred community supervision. On November 6, 2015, the State filed a motion to r evoke probation based2

on numerous viol ations of community supervision conditions, including that Ga rcia was found guilty of felony driving while intoxicated , see id

. § § 49.04, 49.0 9 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) , and had been sentenced to ten years in prison. Garcia ple a d ed not
true to the probation violations and requested a hearing before the tri al court

. After the hearing, the trial c ourt found five of the six allegations in the State’s motion
to r evoke true and revoked Garcia’s community supervision . It sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— Ins titutional Division

. Garcia was granted the limited right to appeal. Garcia’s court

- appointed appellate 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 , Garcia’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 requireme nts of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 08) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds non, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing H

awkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet .)). In compliance with High v. State and Kelly v. State , Garcia’s counsel carefully3

discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court ’s judgment. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Garcia’s appellate counsel also notified this Court that he: (1) notified Garcia that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Garcia with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Garcia of his rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that response, 1 and seek discretionary review if we concluded tha t the appeal is frivolous; (4) provided Garcia with a copy of the appellate record; and (5) informed Garcia that the pro se response, if any, should identify for the Court those issues which he believes the Court should consider in deciding whether the cas e presents any meritorious issues. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510, n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has passed, and Garcia had 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 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 filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds

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 court those issues which the indigent appellant believes t he court should consider in deciding whether to case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.) )

.4

no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are argu able 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 unti l after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. Id

. at 827. We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id . at 827

– 28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by ind icating 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 Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d
at 509. Ther e 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 , Garcia’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders , 38 6 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey 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 with draw 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 motion to withdraw. Within five days of this Court ’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Garcia and advise him of his right to5

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).
IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice
Do not p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b )

. Delivered and filed the 21st day of July , 201 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 overrule by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. Any petition for discretionar y review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.4.