Court Opinion

ID: 9960449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:15.1925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:28.606885
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00021-CR

                                         Robert Ray LACINA,
                                              Appellant

                                                 v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                    From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. CR-XX-XXXXXXX
                            Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           In 2018, Appellant Robert Ray Lacina was indicted for robbery with prior conviction

enhancement, and he pled guilty. The trial court deferred adjudication and sentenced him to ten

years of community supervision.

           Later, the State alleged that Lacina had violated multiple conditions of his community

supervision, and it moved to adjudicate the robbery charge. In 2022, Lacina pled true to most of

the State’s allegations. The trial court adjudicated Lacina’s guilt, and it assessed punishment at
                                                                                       04-22-00021-CR

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for a period of

sixty years. Lacina appealed his conviction.

       Having reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Lacina’s pro se brief, and the record, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                         COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF

       Lacina’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel

also filed a motion to withdraw. The brief recited the relevant facts with citations to the record. It

added that counsel reviewed the appellate record and concluded that “there are no issues

warranting reversal of the trial court’s judgment.” See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

       We conclude appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Lacina with a

copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Lacina of his right to review the

record and file a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924

S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also advised Lacina of his

right to request a copy of the record and provided Lacina with a motion to request a copy of the

record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

                                   APPELLANT’S PRO SE BRIEF

       Lacina requested and received a copy of the appellate record. His pro se brief raises five

issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) prosecutorial vindictiveness, (3) a Brady violation,

(4) procedural due process violations, and (5) excessive or cruel and unusual punishment.

                                                 -2-
                                                                                       04-22-00021-CR

                                            CONCLUSION

       Having reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Lacina’s pro se brief, we conclude that

there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment, and we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–

86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

                                         FURTHER REVIEW

       No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing

himself, Lacina may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals

within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing

or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, 68.3(a).

The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                   Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Do not publish

                                                 -3-