Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00183-CR

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR10110

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Richard Lares appeals a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the date of the offense listed in 

the original judgment. Lares’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel 

concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Lares with a copy of the brief and 

informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 

S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 

n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Lares filed a pro se brief asserting ineffective 
04-15-00183-CR

- 2 -

assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary issues, and a constitutional challenge 

to article 21.02(6) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Lares’s pro se brief, we conclude that the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

1

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw 

is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will 

be appointed. Should Lares wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals, Lares must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Lares 

must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be 

filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely 

motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1

If an Anders brief is filed in an appeal and the appellant elects to file a pro se brief, the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeal has instructed that this court has two choices. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.2d at 826-27. We may “determine that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the court] has reviewed the record and finds no 

reversible error.” Id. “Or, [we] may determine 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.” Id. at 827. “Only after the issues have been 

briefed by new counsel may [this court] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id. If we “were to review the case 

and issue an opinion which addressed and rejected the merits raised in a pro se response to an Anders brief, then [the] 

[a]ppellant would be deprived of the meaningful assistance of counsel.” Id.