NUMBER 13-09-093-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ISMAEL SALINAS VALADEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 105th District Court 

of Kleberg County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

Appellant, Ismael Salinas Valadez, was placed on community supervision for the

criminal offense of possession of marijuana less than 2,000 pounds but more than 50

pounds. SeeTEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(b)(5) (Vernon 2003). On March
2

14, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke Salinas’ probation alleging that he had

committed numerous violations, including being convicted of two additional felonies. On

January 6, 2009, Salinas pleaded “true” to all allegations. After a hearing, the trial court

revoked Salinas’ supervision and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Concluding that "there

are no meritorious issues for appeal," appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he

reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. The State has not filed a brief. We

affirm.

I. Compliance with Anders v. California

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded

that there are no appealable issues for this Court to consider. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id.

at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see

also 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). In compliance with Anders, following his review of the Court's file and

the transcripts, his research, and his correspondence with appellant, counsel presented

a professional evaluation of the record including, among other things, a review of grand

jury proceedings, pre-trial motions, research and investigation, competency, sentencing,

right to present evidence during the guilt/innocence and punishment stages, and right to
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the 1

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 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

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.

Counsel has informed this Court that he has reviewed the appellate record and

concluded there are no arguable grounds for reversal. He has also informed this Court

that he provided appellant with a copy of the transcripts in his case, a copy of the brief, and

notified appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response to counsel's

brief and motion to withdraw within thirty days. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 1

n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro

se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-

45; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509; High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

II. Independent Review

The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a

"frivolous appeal" brief, they must "conduct ‘a full examination of all the proceedings to

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.’" Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)

(quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex.

App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record

and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

827-28 ("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,
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appel lant wish to seek further review of this case 2

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 wil l 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.

4

the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. In accordance with Anders, appellant's

attorney has 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.–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)). We grant his motion to withdraw. 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.2 SeeTEX. R. APP.

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).

ROSE VELA

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 30th day of July, 2009.