Opinion filed November 22 , 201 7



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 069

- CR

____ _ ______ 

### JUAN ANTONIO CERVANTE

- SANCHEZ , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 220 th District Court Comanche County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. CR

- 03962

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Juan Antonio
Cervante

- Sanchez of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child

. The trial
court held a punishment hearing and assessed punishment at confinement for life

. We dismiss the appeal. Appe llant’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 conclude s that the appeal is frivolous.2

Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the brief , the motion to withdraw,
and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised
A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.
A ppellant has not filed a 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. Cri m. 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 independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a pet ition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is han ded down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along

1 T his c ourt granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for disc retionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

November 22 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.