Court Opinion

ID: 9838073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-04 12:07:19.699503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:17.533263
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 29, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00039-CR
                               NO. 01-23-00040-CR
                            ———————————
                      MARTIN CORONA JR., Appellant
                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 22nd District Court
                            Comal County, Texas
              Trial Court Case No. CR2021-139 and CR2021-138

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Martin Corona, Jr., pleaded not guilty to the offense of retaliation.

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 36.06. After a jury trial, the trial court signed a judgment

of conviction on the jury verdict finding Corona guilty of retaliation and, based on
the verdict and appellant’s plea of true to the five enhancement paragraphs, the trial

court sentenced appellant to 60 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

         On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

         Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is

unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2006, no pet.). The State waived the opportunity to file a response to the Anders

brief.

         Counsel advised appellant of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised appellant of

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Appellant requested and was

granted access to the record and filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

         We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

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

                                           2
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,

767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable

grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines

whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an

appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See

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

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney John G. Jasuta must immediately send appellant the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.

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

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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
                                           3