## NUMBER S 13 - 2 3 - 00 253 - CR , 13 - 2 3 - 00 254 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

MARK LOPEZ , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

O N APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT

OF KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides , Tijerina , and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides In appellate cause number 13

- 23

- 00 253

- CR, a ppellant Mark Lopez pleaded guilty to the offenses of : (1) continuous family violence, a second

- degree felony; (2) escape, a third

- degree felony; and (3) evading arrest , a state jail felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §§ 25.11, 38.04 (b)(1) , 38.06 (c) . In appellate cause number 13

- 23

- 00 254

- CR, Lopez pleaded guilty to bail jumping , enhanced to a second

- degree felony by prior felony2

convictions

. See id. § § 12.42, 38.10

. The trial court deferred adjudication for all four offenses and placed Lopez on community supervision for ten years

. The State filed a motion to revoke , and a t the hearing, Lopez pleaded “ true ” to the allegations in the motion . The trial court revoked Lopez ’s community supervision , adjudicated him guilty of the offenses, and s entenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the continuous family violence offense, ten years’ imprisonment for escap e, two years in state jail for evading arrest, and fifteen years’ imprisonment for bail jumping. The trial
court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Lopez ’s court
- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment s. I. A NDERS B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , Lopez ’s court
- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record in both causes yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould be predicated. See id. 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, 40 6 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texa s, 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

– Edinburg 2003, no pet.)) ) ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).3

In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Lopez ’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment s

. L opez ’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that in both causes he : (1) notified Lopez that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Lopez with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Lopez of h is right s to file pro se response s , to review the record prior to filing those response s , and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Lopez with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires Lopez ’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly

, 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d a t 40 8

– 09

. An adequate amount of time has passed , and Lopez has not file d a pro se response in either cause

. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 record and counsel’s brief in both causes , and we have found nothing that woul d 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 s of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W. 2d at 5 11

.4 I II

. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , Lopez ’s counsel has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel in both causes. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in both

causes . Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Lopez and to advise h im of h is right to file a petition for discre tionary review. 1 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).
I V

. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment s

. GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice
Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 4th day of April , 202 4

.

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Lopez 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.