### NUMBER 13 - 1 3 - 00 173 - 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
A ppellant Jose Rodrigo a/k/a Rodrigo Jose a/k/a Jose Rodrigo Guzman appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery , a fir st

- degree felony enhanced to repeat felony offender

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29 .0 3 ( West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Appellant pleaded not guilty, but a jury found appellant guilty. The trial court assessed2

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 court

appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating
that h is 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 arguab le 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 h is 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 the3

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d a t 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

– 2 8 (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 re viewed 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.) (“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

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes t he 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 t his Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise
h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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). G regory T. Perkes Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 22nd day of May , 201 4

.

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 discre tionary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rul e of Appellate Procedure 68.4, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.