NUMBER 13-13-00173-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

JOSE RODRIGO A/K/A

RODRIGO JOSE A/K/A

JOSE RODRIGO GUZMAN Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant Jose Rodrigo a/k/a Rodrigo Jose a/k/a Jose Rodrigo Guzman appeals 

his conviction of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony enhanced to repeat felony 

offender. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). 

Appellant pleaded not guilty, but a jury found appellant guilty. The trial court assessed 
2

appellant’s punishment at 15 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID). Appellant timely perfected this appeal, and, as 

discussed below, his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s courtappointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating 

that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. 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) (“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).

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 reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this 

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

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

and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.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 
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 and have found 

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827–28 (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. There is no reversible error 

in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

withdraw as counsel for appellant. 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.) (“If 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 

 

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

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 this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 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).

Gregory T. Perkes

Justice

Do not publish. 

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

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of May, 2014. 

 

2

 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. Any

petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4, see 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.