### NUMBER 13

- 1 2

- 071

- C R


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

JERRY KEITH REEVES , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 128th District Court of Orange County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza 1

Appellant, Jerry Keith Reeves
, pleaded guilty to felony theft of less than $20,000
,
a state

- jail felony offense. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03 (a), (e)(4) (West Supp.

2011 ). The trial court sentenced appellant to two years confinement in state jai l,
assessed restitution at $20, 208.39, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2005).2

community super vision for a period of five years. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art.
42.12, § 3 (West Supp. 2011).
The State later filed a motion to revoke appell ant’s community supervision

. Pursuant to an amended plea agreement, appellant’s community supervision w as extended for an additional five years. In 2010, the State filed another motion to revoke
appellant’s community supervision, alleging various violations of the conditions of
appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to s everal of the State’s
allegations. Following a hearing on December 19
, 2011, t he trial court accepted
appellant’s plea of “true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed
appellant’s punishment at twelve months’ confinement in a state jail facilit y.

I. A NDERS B RIEF

A ppellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
support thereof in which s he states that s he has diligently reviewed the entire record

and has concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S.
738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Te x. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel has informed this Court that s he has (1) examined the record and has found no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of the brief and motion to

withdraw on appellant , and (3) informed appellant of h is right to review the record and to

file a pro se response

. 2 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d
503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991 )

. More than an adequate time has passed, and no

2 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

pro se response ha s been filed. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). 3

II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). W e have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and find

that th e appeal is wholly frivo lous and without merit. 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 it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Acco rdingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court

.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders
, appellant ’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

h is appellate counsel

. 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.

— Dallas
1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from
representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorn ey must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that
the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.

3 We note that on Jul y 11, 2012, appellant filed pro se motion to withdraw his appeal and “return” the case to the trial court. Appellant’s counsel subsequently signed the motion. We deny appellant’s motion because the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. S ee State v. Gutierrez , 143 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (“The filing of the appellate record, not the notice of appeal, severs the trial court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.” ); see also Berry v. State , 995 S.W.2d 699, 70 0 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (“[O] nce the trial court has submitted the record to the court of appeals, the trial court loses jurisdiction until it receives a mandate from the appellate court .”).4

We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a

c opy of the opinion and judgment s to appellant and advise h im of h is right to file a
petition for discretionary review. 4 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).

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Justice
Do not p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered and filed the 9th day of August
, 201 2

.

4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wis h to seek further review of these cases 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Cr iminal Appeals. See id . R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.