Court Opinion

ID: 9960457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:22.079469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:30.577764
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-23-00134-CR

                                      Joe Frank Avila RANGEL,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2021CR5036
                              Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           In June 2021, Appellant Joe Frank Avila Rangel Sr. was indicted for violating the terms of

a protective order. He pled no contest to the charge, and on January 25, 2022, the trial court

deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for eighteen months.

After Rangel allegedly violated conditions of his community supervision, the State moved to

adjudicate his guilt and revoke his community supervision. On November 29, 2022, the trial court

adjudicated Rangel’s guilt, revoked his community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for

one year in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center, and ordered court costs of $375.
                                                                                       04-23-00134-CR

       Rangel appealed his conviction. Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief,

and the State filed a brief waiver. Rangel did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.

                         COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF

       Rangel’s court-appointed appellate counsel’s brief contained 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. The brief

stated that “[a]fter careful inspection of the record, [court-appointed appellate counsel] has

identified no adverse rulings that could arguably support a claim of reversible error.” See Nichols

v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

       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 Rangel with a copy of the brief

and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and he informed Rangel 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 provided Rangel with a draft pro

se motion to request a free copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–

20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

                                            CONCLUSION

       Having reviewed the record and the Anders 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.

                                                 -2-
                                                                                       04-23-00134-CR

                                         FURTHER REVIEW

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

himself, Rangel 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                   Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Do not publish

                                                 -3-