NUMBERS 13-14-00269-CR

13-14-00270-CR

13-14-00272-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

VICTOR CAMPOS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 148th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Upon open pleas of guilty, the trial court found appellant Victor Campos guilty of 

three counts of possession of a controlled substance in trial court cause numbers 13-CR-
2

2692-E (cocaine), 13-CR-2693-E (cocaine), and 13-CR-3446-E (marijuana), 1the 

offenses ranging from state-jail to third-degree felonies.

2

 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. §§ 481.115(b), (c) & 481.121(a), (b)(3) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 

R.S.). Punishment in each case was tried to the court. The trial court sentenced 

Campos to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (TDCJ) for possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony. It also sentenced 

Campos to two years in the state-jail division of the TDCJ for possession of cocaine and 

to two years for unlawful possession of marijuana, both state-jail felonies. The court 

ordered all sentences to run concurrently, with credit for time served. On appeal, 

Campos’s counsel concludes, “the proceedings show no non-frivolous matters that might 

be successfully appealed.” We affirm the judgments of the trial court.3

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Campos's counsel filed a brief stating that, after 

a review of the entire record, he has “determined that there are no non-frivolous issues 

applicable to this case.” See 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the 

 

1 The respective appellate cause numbers are 13-14-00269-CR, 13-14-00270-CR, and 13-14-

00272-CR.

2 On July 1, 2014, this Court granted Campos’s motion to consolidate four trial court cause

numbers for purposes of appeal. The four cases included Campos’s three convictions for possession of a 

controlled substance and his conviction for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit a felony in trial 

court cause number 13-CR-2691-E, for which he was sentenced to forty-five years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (d) (West, 

Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 R.S.). Campos appealed the burglary-of-a-habitation conviction in 

appellate cause number 13-14-00271-CR. On July 16, 2015, by separate order issued in that case, we 

abated that appeal for appointment of new counsel and for briefing of any issues counsel believes have 

merit. Accordingly, this opinion only addresses the three remaining causes.

3 Although we abated the burglary-of-a-habitation case for further briefing, we will address the 

remaining controlled-substance convictions in this single opinion.
3

requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are 

no meritorious grounds for advancing any 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 

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) 

(en banc).

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), counsel 

has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders by discussing 

why, under controlling authority, any appeal from the judgments would be without merit 

and frivolous. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that he has: (1) notified 

Campos that counsel has filed an Anders brief and has requested that we allow him to 

withdraw as counsel; (2) provided Campos with copies of the pleadings; (3) informed 

Campos of his right to file a pro se response,4to review the record preparatory to filing 

that response, and to seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that the 

appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Campos with a form motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 

 

4 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) 

(orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3; see also In 

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. On January 17, 2015, Campos filed a motion for 

pro se access to the record on appeal. We abated the appeals and ordered the trial 

court to provide Campos with an opportunity to fully examine the appellate record. We 

also informed Campos that a pro se response would be due thirty days from the date he 

received the record. Campos acknowledged receipt of the record from the trial court on 

February 27, 2015. We reinstated the appeals on April 28, 2015. Adequate time has 

passed, and Campos has not filed any pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Pension v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record of each of the controlledsubstance cases, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in cause numbers 

13-CR-2692-E, 13-CR-2693-E, and 13-CR-3446-E.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked this Court to grant his motion to 

withdraw as counsel for Campos in each case for which he was convicted of possession 
5

of a controlled substance. 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.) (“If 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 that 

this Court carried with the case on February 3, 2015, in appellate cause numbers 13-14-

00269, 13-14-00270-CR, and 13-14-00272-CR. Within five days of the date of this 

Court's opinion, we order counsel to send a copy of the opinion and the judgments to 

Campos and to advise Campos of his right to pursue petitions for discretionary review.

5

 

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).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the 

16th day of July, 2015.

 

5 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek review of these cases

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file petitions for discretionary 

review or file pro se petitions 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 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should 

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