NUMBER 13-11-00635-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

RAYMOND LOUIS SR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 252nd District Court 

of Jefferson County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant Raymond Louis Sr. appeals from his conviction for the offense of 

evading arrest or detention by the use of a vehicle, a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B) (West 2011). Louis pleaded guilty to the offense, but his 

adjudication was deferred and he was placed on community supervision for a term of five 
2

years. Less than a year later, on the State's motion, the trial court determined that Louis 

had violated the terms of his community supervision and revoked his community 

supervision. The trial court adjudicated Louis guilty of the charged offense and 

sentenced him to two years' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice.

Concluding that Louis's appeal in this case is without merit and frivolous, counsel 

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

affirm as modified.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Louis's 

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has 

"reviewed the Court's file, reviewed the transcripts, . . . and researched the point[s] of 

error," and in his professional opinion, "there are no appealable issues for this Court to 

consider." See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. 

proceeding) ("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 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) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Louis's counsel has, thus, carefully discussed why, under controlling 

authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this 
3

Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance 

on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief, counsel’s motion to withdraw, and the record on 

Louis, and (3) informed Louis of his 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 Louis 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, this Court 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, and 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) ("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.2d at 509. We agree with 

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 

at 827-28 ("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 requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 47.1."). 

 

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) (orig. 

proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

The only error in the record is what appears to be a typographical error in the 

judgment adjudicating guilt. The judgment lists the statute for the offense as section 

"38.04(a)(1)" of the penal code—no such section exists. At the time of Louis's offense,

the statute establishing the state jail felony offense of evading arrest or detention by the 

use of a vehicle was Texas Penal Code sections 38.04(a) and (b)(1)(B). See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B). Accordingly, because we have the necessary data and 

evidence for reformation, we modify the trial court's judgment to reflect the correct 

sections of the penal code—sections 38.04(a) and (b)(1)(B). See id.; see also Bigley v. 

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App .1993). We affirm the judgment adjudicating 

guilt as modified. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Louis's attorney has asked this Court for permission to 

withdraw as counsel for Louis. 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.) (noting that "[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 the opinion and judgment to Louis and to advise Louis of his 

right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re 

 

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Louis 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 
5

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

App. 2006).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the 

17th day of May, 2012.

 

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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.