### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 252 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

GUADALUPE PACHECO , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 377 th 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §
22.02 ( a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through 201 5 R.S. ), and one count of evading arrest or2

detention, a third

- degree felony offense. S ee id. § 3 8.04 (a), (b)(2)(A) (West, Westlaw through 20 15 R.S. ). Following a punishment hearing, t he 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 ev ading 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. A NDERS B RIEF 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 requir ements 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 'a rguable' 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 di scussed 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) informed3

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 , 201 6

.
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). W hen an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed, a court of appeals reviews the entire record, and : (1) determine s that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue s an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2)
determine s that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand s 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 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

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. A ccordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW 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 Schulma n , 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 appoint ed 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 or dered 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 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). 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 discret ionary 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 clerk of the c ourt of criminal a ppeals, s ee 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. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 21st day of April , 20 1 6

.