### NUMBER 13 - 19 - 00 433 - 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02(b)(1). Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs which alleged that he had been convicted of three prior felonies. Appellant elec ted to have the trial court2 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 f iled 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. **A NDERS**  B RIEF 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 e rror 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 a ppellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant3 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 fo r 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 tim e has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record or
a pro se response

. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 h ave 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

an d 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 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 We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds fo r 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. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withd raw 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 advi se him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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).
I V. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment. NORA L. L ONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 30th day of April , 20 20.

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 discreti onary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.