NUMBER 13-15-00252-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GUADALUPE PACHECO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court of 

Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant Guadalupe Pacheco entered an “open” plea of guilty to one count of 

aggravated assault, a second-degree felony offense, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §

22.02(a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.), and one count of evading arrest or 
2

detention, a third-degree felony offense. See id. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West, Westlaw 

through 2015 R.S.). Following a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant 

to twenty years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine on the aggravated assault offense and 

to ten years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine on the evading arrest offense, with the 

sentences ordered to run concurrently. 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; and (3) informed 
3

the appellant of appellant’s rights to file a pro se response,1 and review the record 

preparatory to filing that response. 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. 

The record shows that appellant was provided a copy of the record on August 21, 

2015. After this Court granted several motions for extension of time in which to file his

pro se response, appellant filed his pro se response on February 25, 2016.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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). When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed, a court 

of appeals reviews the entire record, and: (1) determines that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issues an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) 

determines that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remands 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 those issues on appeal. Id.

We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se 

response, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 

 

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 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

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 Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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 

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

 

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.
5

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

21st day of April, 2016.