### NUMBER 13 - 1 3 - 00 231 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

MILTON GONZALEZ , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 2 8 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
M emorandum Opinion Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

A ppellant, Milton Gonzalez , was charged with a robbery offense that allegedly occurred at an HEB grocery store in Nueces County, Texas. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.02 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). At a bench trial, appellant did not contest2

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

c ourt found appellant guilty and sentenced him t o five years in prison. Appellant’s court

appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. A NDERS B RIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California , appell ant’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

. Co unsel’ s brief meets the requirements o f 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

ne ed 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.)); Staffor d 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. Ap p. 2014), appellant’ s counsel carefully discussed why , under controlling authority and based on the record , there is no reve rsible 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 moti on to withdraw; (2) provided the appellant with a copy of the pleadings;3

(3) info rmed the appellant of his righ ts 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
appe llate 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 provid ed 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 file d a brief

. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 revi ewing the ent ire record, the Court may (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining th at 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 C ourt 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 revi ewed 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 Appellate4

Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record.
A ccordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
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 appointe d attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). The Court grant s counsel’ s motion to withdraw. With in 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 petit ion for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 discretion ary 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 reconsider ation

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Ru le s of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.4.