In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00413-CR 

SANTIAGO CARRASCO, JR., APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 64th District Court 

Swisher County, Texas 

Trial Court No. A-4642-17-06, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding 

 

April 2, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

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

Santiago Carrasco, Jr., appellant, pleaded not guilty to burglary of a building1 and 

the case proceeded to trial. Following voir dire, appellant changed his plea to guilty. The 

jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice and a $2,500 fine.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2019).
2

In this appeal, counsel for appellant has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a 

motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In his brief, counsel certifies that he has conducted a conscientious examination 

of 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 discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there are no 

reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has sent a letter to appellant 

notifying him of his motion to withdraw; provided appellant with 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 has not filed such a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where 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 support an 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. 

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
3

Crim. App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s 

brief, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review.

Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.3

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.