NUMBER 13-12-00124-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ANDREW DELEON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Andrew DeLeon, was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual 

assault of a child, a second-degree felony, enhanced to a first-degree felony.

1

 See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011 (West 2011). Appellant was sentenced to twelve years’ 

 

1

Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, at sentencing, appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s 

allegation that he is a habitual felony offender.
2

confinement for each count. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 

Appellant’s appellate counsel, concluding that the appeal in this cause is frivolous, filed 

an Anders brief, in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We 

affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s appellate 

counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief with this Court stating that he was 

unable to find any non-frivolous error or any meritorious issues. 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) (AIn 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), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, 

there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel specifically noted that he 

reviewed the following potential issues: (1) violation of “the Rule”2by witnesses at trial; 

(2) whether any error occurred during the punishment phase of appellant’s trial; and (3) 

whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Counsel then proceeded to 

explain why these potential issues are without merit. Counsel has demonstrated that he 

 

2

See TEX. R. EVID. 614.
3

has complied with the requirements of Anders by (1) examining the record and finding 

no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) serving a copy of the brief and motion to 

withdraw as counsel on appellant, and (3) informing appellant of his right to review the 

record and to file a pro se response.3 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 and counsel’s brief; however, 

we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel. 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 

 

3

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

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (AIf 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 the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise him of his 

right to file a petition for discretionary review.4 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).

__________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

8th day of August, 2013.

 

4 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. 

Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the 

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.