## NUMBER 13
- 1 1
- 00 365
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

ALEXANDER SAENZ , A ppellant ,

v . THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 105 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela Appellant, Alexander Saenz , ple a d ed guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated robbery , a first degree felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 3 0 .02 (W est 20 03). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. An amended
motio n to revoke was filed on May 2, 2011, alleging that appellant : (1) failed to report to2

his probation officer Septem ber 2010 to March 2011 ; (2 ) failed to remain with in Nueces County; (3) was in arrears with respect to fines and fees ; and (4) failed to complete a substance abuse aftercare program. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pleaded true t o all allegation s contained in the motion

. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated robbery , and senten ce d him to fifteen years ' c onfinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely perfected this appeal , and as discussed below, h is court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We
affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), a ppellant ' 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 error upon which an appeal can be predicated. By the Anders brief, counsel raises a possible i ssue and then demonstrates why no reversible error exists. 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 lega l authorities. " ) (citing Hawkins v. State , 11 2 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).3

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
O p.] 1978), a ppellant ' s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court ' s judgment. Counsel has informed this
Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arg uab le grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counse l ' s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed a ppellant of h is right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed , and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.
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). We have reviewed the entire record as well as counsel ' s brief, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827

– 2 8 (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 of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. " ); Stafford , 813 S.W.2 d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant ' s attorney asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellan t. 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 h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4;
see also In re Schul

man , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

JUSTICE ROSE VELA Justice

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 12t h day of January, 2012.

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 atto rney 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 tim ely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 . Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.