NUMBER 13-19-00433-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

DAVID SAMUEL FLORES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 23rd District Court

of Wharton County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant David Samuel Flores was convicted of aggravated assault of a family 

member with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.02(b)(1). Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs which alleged that 

he had been convicted of three prior felonies. Appellant elected to have the trial court 
2

assess punishment and he was sentenced to fifty-five years’ incarceration in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an 

Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that his review of the record yielded no 

grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets 

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 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–Edinburg 

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) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, 

that counsel has: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion 

to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant 
3

of his rights to review the record, file a pro se response,1 and seek discretionary review if 

this Court concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form 

motion for pro se access to the appellate record that includes the Court’s mailing address, 

instructions to file the motion within ten days, and only requires appellant’s signature and 

the date. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19. Adequate time has 

passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record or 

a pro se response.

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 may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion after 

reviewing the record and finding no reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Alternatively, if we determine that arguable grounds for 

appeal exist, we must remand for the appointment of new counsel to brief those issues. 

Id. at 827.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate 

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See id. 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, the court of appeals met the 

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

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 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.)).
4

We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for 

review, and an appeal would be frivolous. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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 (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, 

he must withdraw from representing the appellant.” (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 

776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.))). 

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 him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 

670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the 

30th day of April, 2020.

2 No substitute counsel 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. 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 or timely motion 

for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any 

petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

68.4. See id. R. 68.4.