Opinion filed July 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

________________

Nos. 11-15-00022-CR & 11-15-00023-CR

________________

EDDIE SANDOVAL SOTO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 23382 & 23434

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Eddie Sandoval Soto, entered an open plea of guilty to the

charged offenses of possession of less than one gram of cocaine and bail 

jumping/failure to appear. The trial court convicted Appellant of both offenses. 

For the possession conviction, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at 

confinement for two years in a state jail facility and, for the conviction for bail 

jumping and failing to appear, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment,
2

upon his plea of true to the felony enhancement allegation, at confinement for 

sixteen years. We dismiss the appeals.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in both

appeals. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has 

concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a 

copy of the briefs, the motions to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the 

records and has advised Appellant of his right to review the records and file a 

response to counsel’s briefs. Appellant filed in each case the motion for pro se 

access that counsel sent him. This court granted the motions, and the records were

sent to Appellant more than thirty days ago. Appellant has not filed a pro se 

response.

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 

S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief 

and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record 

and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and 

remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief 

the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and 

Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the 

appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 
3

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal 

cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days 

after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and 

judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition 

for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant 

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

July 16, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and McCall.

1

Bailey, J., not participating.

 

1Terry McCall, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by 

assignment.