Court Opinion

ID: 4223527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-27 08:18:32.211766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:50.728011
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

                                    In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  ___________

                              No. 11-17-00069-CR
                                  ___________

        JUAN ANTONIO CERVANTE-SANCHEZ, Appellant
                                       V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 220th District Court
                          Comanche County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. CR-03962

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Juan Antonio
Cervante-Sanchez of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial
court held a punishment hearing and assessed punishment at confinement for life.
We dismiss the appeal.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw,
and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.
Appellant has not filed a response.1
         Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161
S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and
pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds
no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).       Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
         We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the
attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the
opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along

         1
          This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s
brief.

                                                        2
with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
       The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                                    PER CURIAM

November 22, 2017
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

                                          3