## NUMBER 13
- 1 2
- 00 371
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

ALBERT CUELLAR , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justice s Garza , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant Albert Cuellar pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI), his third
DWI offense , a third

- degree felony

. S e e T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 49.04 (a) , 49.09 (b)(2) (West Supp. 2011). Appellant also pleaded “true” to a prior felony conviction, which
enhanced the DWI offense to a second

- degree felony

. S ee id . § 12.42 (a) (West Supp.2

2011)

. There was no plea bargain. T he trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at ten years’ incarceration in the T exas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and, as discussed below, his

court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s

court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meet s the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specificall y 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 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there a re no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this
Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguab le grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant;3

and (3) informed appellant of h is right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1
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 at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, a nd appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.
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. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel ’s brief, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 2 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders brief s, 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 5 09. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant’s attorney 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.) (“I f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant . To withdraw from representation, the

1 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.)).4

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 counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to
advise h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 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).
GREGORY T. PERKES Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 15th day of August , 2013.

2 No substitute cou nsel 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. An y petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.