In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00462-CR 

JAVIER PALACIOS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 108th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 73,827-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding 

 

March 27, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

On December 19 and 20, 2017, appellant, Javier Palacios, was tried for the offense 

of failure to comply with registration requirements.1 Appellant pled not guilty and the case 

proceeded to a jury trial. After hearing evidence, the jury found appellant guilty and, after 

hearing punishment evidence, sentenced appellant to forty-five years’ incarceration in the 

 

1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018).
2

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed 

his notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the 

representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 

S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel 

certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects 

no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under 

the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. 

Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the 

motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se 

response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying 

appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an 

Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se 

response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant filed a pro se response in which he 

identified communication issues between himself and trial counsel. However, none of 

these complaints are reflected in the record. The State did not file a brief.

In the present case, a jury found appellant guilty of the offense of failure to register, 

and sentenced him to forty-five years’ incarceration. By his Anders brief, counsel 

discusses where in the record reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the 

appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether 

there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might 
3

support this appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

After carefully reviewing the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro 

se response, we conclude that there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We 

therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

 

2 Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with 

Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall, within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, 

does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.