NUMBER 13-14-00671-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

ROLAND PEREZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

The State charged appellant, Roland Perez, with aggravated assault, a seconddegree felony, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 

R.S.), related to an incident that took place on January 7, 2013 in Nueces County. On 

August 14, 2013, Perez pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of deadly conduct, 
2

a third-degree felony, see id. § 22.05(b) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.). The 

trial court deferred adjudication of Perez’s guilt and placed him on community supervision 

for two years with various conditions, including: a $2,500 fine of which $1,750 was 

suspended if Perez paid $750 within the first year of community supervision; sixty hours 

of community supervision; anger management classes; and no contact with the victim. 

On July 11, 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Perez’s community supervision 

on grounds that he violated several conditions of his community supervision, including 

that he failed to: (1) report to his community supervision officer for five consecutive 

months; (2) pay his fine, his monthly supervision fee, as well as urinalysis and blood 

analysis fee; (3) satisfactorily participate in the Treatment Alternative to Incarceration 

Program; and (4) attend anger management classes as directed. Perez pleaded true to 

all of the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. As a result, the trial court found the 

grounds to revoke true, revoked Perez’s community supervision, and sentenced him to 

four years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Perez’s 

court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, 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 
3

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 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, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Perez’s 

counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error 

in the trial court's judgment. Perez’s appellate counsel also notified this Court that he 

(1) notified Perez that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided 

Perez with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Perez of his rights to file a pro se 

response,1review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary 

review if we concluded that the appeal is frivolous; (4) provided Perez with a copy of the 

appellate record; and (5) informed Perez that the pro se response, if any, should identify 

for the Court those issues which he believes the Court should consider in deciding 

whether the case presents any meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 

436 S.W.3d at 319–20, Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has passed, and Perez has not filed 

a pro se brief. 

 

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

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). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a 

subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) 

determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds 

no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and 

remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable 

grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed 

those issues on appeal. Id.

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found 

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Perez’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 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must 
5

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 Court’s opinion, counsel is 

ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Perez and to advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 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, 673 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

30th day of July, 2015. 

 

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 TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.