See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(1)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009). 1

See id. § 25.02 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Enhancement paragraphs made appellant subject to

2

punishment under section 12.42(d) of the penal code, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp.

2009) (providing for punishment range of 25 to 99 years or life in prison), and section 12.42(c)(2)(A)(i), (B)(ii),

see id. § 12.42(c)(2)(A)(i), (B)(ii) (Vernon Supp. 2009) (providing for mandatory life sentence). 

 

NUMBER 13-09-00242-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

JOSE COLIN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 214th District Court of 

Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez

A jury found appellant, Jose Colin, guilty of one count of sexual assault and one 1

count of prohibited sexual conduct. The trial court sentenced appellant to life 2

imprisonment on the sexual assault offense and forty years’ imprisonment on the
See id. § 3.03(b)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009). 3

 W e note that although counsel’s brief does not specifically cite Anders, we know of no requirement 4

that it do so, as it meets all the requirements of Anders. 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). 

High v. State, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 5

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 6

at 409 n.23. 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 at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955

S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–W aco 1997, no pet.)).

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 409 n.23. 

7

2

prohibited sexual assault offense, with the sentences to run consecutively. The trial court 3

certified appellant’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s courtappointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the

record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although

counsel’s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to

be advanced on appeal.4

In compliance with High v. State, appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, 5

under controlling authority, there are no 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. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed 6

a pro se response. 

7
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). 8

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders 9

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. 

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. 10

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)). 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 11

S.W .3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 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 that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review

must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

3

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. We have reviewed the

8

entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in each case. 9

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

to withdraw as counsel for appellant. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

10

Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a

copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a

petition for discretionary review.11

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

19th day of August, 2010.