## NUMBER S 13 - 1 0 - 00 520 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

RODOLFO OROZCO DURAN , A ppellant ,
v . THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez , Vela , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
A ppellant, Rodolfo Orozco Duran , appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, a
second

- degree felony enhanced to a first

- degree felony by a prior felony conviction

. See
T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §§ 22.02(a)(2) & 12.42(b) (West 2011). Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty , sentenced to a term of forty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division , and fined $10,000.2

Appellant timely perfected this appeal and , as discussed below , h is court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
P ursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), a ppellant ’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. C ounsel’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 , 11 2 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), a ppellant ’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. C ounsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arg uab le grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counse l’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed a ppellant of h is right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744;

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 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.)).3

Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant has responded by filing a timely pro se brief.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand t he case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed thos e issues on appeal. Id. 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 we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827

– 2 8 (“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.2 d 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.

— Dallas4

1995, no pet.) ( “[i]f an attorney belie ves 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 this opinion and this 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).

Gregory T. Perkes Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 28th day of June , 2012

.

2 No substitute couns el 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effec tive September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.