# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 00134

- CR
Joe Frank Avila RANGEL , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021CR5036 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WIT HDRAW GRANTED
In June 2021, Appellant Joe Frank Avila Rangel Sr. was indicted for violating the terms of a protective order. He pled no contest to the charge, and o n January 25, 2022, the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for eighteen months

. After Rangel allegedly violated conditions of his community supervision, the State moved to adjudicate his guilt and revoke his community supervision. On November 29, 2022, the trial court adjudicated Rangel’s guilt, revoked his community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for one year in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center, and ordered court costs of $375.04

- 23

- 00134

- CR

- 2

- Rangel appealed his conviction. Court

- appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief,
and the State filed a brief waiver. Rangel did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
C OURT - A PPOINTED C OUNSEL ’ S A NDERS B RIEF Rangel ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel ’s brief contain ed a professional evaluation of
the record in accordanc e with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. The brief recited the relevant facts with citations to the record. The brief

state d that “[a]fter careful inspection of the record, [court

- appointed appellate coun sel] has identified no adverse rulings that could arguably support a claim of reversible error.” See Nichols
v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.)

. Appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders , 386 U.S . at 744; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 , 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). C ounsel provided Rangel with a copy of the brief
and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and he informed Rangel o f his right to review the record and
file a pro se brief. See Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 85

– 86; see also Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided Rangel w ith a draft pro

se motion to request a free copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
C ONCLUSION Having r eviewed the record and the Anders brief, we conclude that the re are no arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we grant appellate counsel’ s motion to withdraw

. See Nichols , 954 S.W .2d at 85

– 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at
177 n.1.04

- 23

- 00134

- CR

- 3

- F URTHER R EVIEW No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing himself, Rangel may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by fil ing a petition for
d iscretion ary review. The pe tition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing
or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 , 68.3(a)

. The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4

.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Do not publish