Opinion issued June 21, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00609-CR

———————————

VICTOR ANTONIO SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1458825

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Victor Antonio Sanchez pleaded guilty to the offense of first degree felony 

murder in return for the State’s agreement to recommend a cap on punishment of 40 

years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The trial 

court sentenced Sanchez to 28 years imprisonment. The trial court certification of 
2

defendant’s right of appeal indicates the trial court gave permission for Sanchez to 

appeal. 

Sanchez’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an 

Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the 

appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 

S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal.

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed 

attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is to seek 

leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to assure it, 

through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to 

withdraw is well-founded. Id. at 406–07.

We may not grant the motion to withdraw until:

(1) the attorney has sent a copy of his Anders brief to his client along 

with a letter explaining that the defendant has the right to file a 

pro se brief within 30 days, and he has ensured that his client 

has, at some point, been informed of his right to file a pro se 

PDR; 

(2) the attorney has informed us that he has performed the above 

duties; 

(3) the defendant has had time in which to file a pro se response; 

and

(4) we have reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and any pro se 

brief.
3

See id. at 408–09. If we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we will grant the 

attorney’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Garner v. 

State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If we conclude that arguable 

grounds for appeal exist, we will grant the motion to withdraw, abate the case, and 

remand it to the trial court to appoint new counsel to file a brief on the merits. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Here, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to Sanchez

and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. 

See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. Sanchez requested access to the record, which 

we granted by order issued February 2, 2016. Sanchez filed a pro se response on 

April 15, 2016. 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements in that it presents a 

professional evaluation of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 

see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel 

supplies us with references to the record and provides us with citation to legal 

authorities. Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that 

he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 
4

We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no 

reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review,

and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767 (explaining that frivolity is determined by 

considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 

at 826–27 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after 

full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 

193 S.W.3d at 155 (stating that reviewing court must determine whether any 

arguable issues exist). Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal 

lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do so. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766–

67. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for 

appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 827 & n.6.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw1and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Attorney Melissa Martin must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this 

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.

 

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005).
5

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

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