Opinion filed July 2 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ _ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 33 4

- C R

_____ __ _____ 

### THOMAS SANCHEZ RAE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 244 t h 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 assault

family violence and assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of six years and a $ 6 ,000 fine

. W e 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 examin es the record and applicable law and states that he has2

concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of the brief and a motion for access to the appellate record and has advised A ppellant of his right to review the re cord and file a response to counsel’s brief. Court

appointed 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. Ap p. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). A ppellant 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 (Te x. 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 A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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, along3

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review under Ru le 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 2 , 2015 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.