Opinion filed July 20, 2017

 

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-17-00046-CR

__________

AURELIANO B. ESQUIVEL, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Gaines County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-4589

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Aureliano B. Esquivel, Jr. pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of 

possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. See TEX. HEALTH

& SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2017). Pursuant to the terms of the 

plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and 

placed him on community supervision. The State subsequently filed an application

to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. After a contested hearing on 
2

revocation, the trial court found all but one of the State’s allegations to be true, 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of 

confinement for two years and a $1,000 fine. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of 

the reporter’s record and clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right 

to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a 

pro se response.1

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 

S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and 

pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause 

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief. 
3

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 

attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the 

opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 20, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.