Opinion filed July 2, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-14-00334-CR

____________

THOMAS SANCHEZ RAE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court 

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-39,078

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Appellant, Thomas Sanchez Rae, of the offense of assaultfamily violence and assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of six years

and a $6,000 fine. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this 

appeal. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has 
2

concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief and a motion for access to the appellate record and has advised Appellant 

of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Courtappointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); 

Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 

S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. 

App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant filed in this court a motion for access to 

the appellate record. The clerk’s record and the reporter’s record were provided to 

Appellant, and Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and supporting brief.

In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only 

determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that 

it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds 

for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be 

appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in 

Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree 

that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 

attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the 

opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 
3

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

July 2, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.