NUMBER 13-19-00527-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

MARIO SIFUENTEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 428th District Court 

of Hays County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant Mario Sifuentez was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated, 

third or more conviction, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. § 49.09(b). At 

trial, the jury found Sifuentez guilty of the charged offense and Sifuentez pleaded true to 

two prior felony convictions for driving while intoxicated. See id. § 12.42. Sifuentez was 

sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–
2

Institutional Division following his conviction.

Sifuentez was not appointed appellate counsel and did not file an appeal. After 

filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

Sifuentez was granted an out-of-time appeal. Ex parte Sifuentez, No. WR-98, 522-01, 

2019 WL 3944314 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 21, 2019) (per curiam). The trial court received 

an affidavit from Sifuentez’s trial counsel in response to Sifuentez’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus and made findings of fact and conclusions of law. Sifuentez was appointed 

appellate counsel. 

Sifuentez appealed, and his court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders 

brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967). We affirm.1

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Sifuentez’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and brief in support 

thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found 

no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it 

presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no 

arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 

n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“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 

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
3

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 at 813, and Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel carefully discussed why, under 

controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Sifuentez’s

counsel has also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Sifuentez that he has filed 

an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Sifuentez with copies of both 

filings; (3) informed Sifuentez of his right to file a pro se response,2to review the record 

preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Sifuentez

with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the 

motion in this Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Sifuentez has filed a pro se response with this 

Court in which he alleges his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, 

Sifuentez alleged that trial counsel failed to present critical evidence for his defense, failed 

to file a motion for new trial, failed to file a notice of appeal, and the combination of the 

allegations also led to ineffective assistance. 

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW 

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

2 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). 
4

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the records, counsel’s brief, and Sifuentez’s pro se 

response, and we have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Sifuentez’s counsel has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw. 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.3d 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 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 memorandum opinion, we order counsel to send 

a copy of this opinion and judgment to Sifuentez and to advise him of his right to file any 

petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Sifuentez seeks further review by the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, then 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. A petition for discretionary review 

must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply 

with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
5

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

20th day of August, 2020.