Court Opinion

ID: 6495174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-27 00:14:18.009598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:45:15.482054
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-20-00480-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JAVIER JASSO SALAZAR JR.,                                                   Appellant,

                                               v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                           Appellee.

                   On appeal from the 214th District Court
                         of Nueces County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

      Appellant Javier Jasso Salazar Jr. was indicted for assault involving family violence

with a prior conviction, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A).

Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to five years’ incarceration in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which was probated for
a period of three years. Appellee, the State of Texas, filed a motion to revoke appellant’s

probation. Appellant entered pleas of “true” to all seven allegations raised in the State’s

motion. The trial court found that appellant violated his probation and sanctioned

appellant to nineteen days in the Nueces County Jail with credit for time served, placed

him on “Zero-Tolerance,” and on the Mental Health Caseload. Subsequently, the State

filed a second motion to revoke appellant’s probation. Appellant entered pleas of “true” to

six of the eleven alleged violations. The trial court revoked appellant’s probation and

sentenced him to five years. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief

stating that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                   I.     ANDERS BRIEF

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could 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, 406 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–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

                                             2
       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, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion

to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant

of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses,

and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4)

provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record record

that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within

ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant filed a motion seeking pro se access to the

appellate record which was granted on May 5, 2021. An adequate amount of time has

passed and appellant has not filed a pro se response.

                                II.    INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       Upon receiving an Anders brief, we 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). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (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 requirements of Texas Rule

                                              3
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

                                     III.     MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                            IV.     CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                             NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                             Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of June, 2022.

         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 opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration 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. R. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
                                                       4