NUMBER 13-13-00231-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MILTON GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion 

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Appellant, Milton Gonzalez, was charged with a robbery offense that allegedly 

occurred at an HEB grocery store in Nueces County, Texas. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 29.02 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). At a bench trial, appellant did not contest 
2

the theft component of the charge, but he did deny causing anyone to suffer any injury. 

See id. There was conflicting evidence about whether appellant punched a loss 

prevention officer for HEB as he was trying to escape with the merchandise. The trial 

court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison. Appellant’s courtappointed 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, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her 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 

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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s 

counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority and based on the record, 

there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, 

in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified the appellant that counsel has filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided the appellant with a copy of the pleadings; 
3

(3) informed the appellant of his rights to file a pro se response and to review the record 

preparatory to filing that response; and (4) provided the appellant with a copy of the 

appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.

More than a reasonable amount of time has elapsed since counsel certified in 

writing that she has provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record and motion to 

withdraw, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. The State has also not filed a 

brief.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, the Court 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). The Court has two options when an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw are filed. After reviewing the entire record, the Court 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.

The Court has reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, and the Court has 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 
4

Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked the 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 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)). The Court grants 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of the Court’s opinion, counsel

is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and the Court’s judgment to appellant and to 

advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 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).1

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish. 

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

Delivered and filed the

16th day of October, 2014.

 

1 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 memorandum opinion or the date when the Court overrules 

the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 

Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.