Court Opinion

ID: 9958051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 17:13:36.734708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.627958
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS 13-23-00253-CR, 13-23-00254-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MARK LOPEZ,                                                                 Appellant,

                                               v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

             ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT
                    OF KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

      In appellate cause number 13-23-00253-CR, appellant Mark Lopez pleaded guilty

to the offenses of: (1) continuous family violence, a second-degree felony; (2) escape, a

third-degree felony; and (3) evading arrest, a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 25.11, 38.04(b)(1), 38.06(c). In appellate cause number 13-23-00254-CR, Lopez

pleaded guilty to bail jumping, enhanced to a second-degree felony by prior felony
convictions. See id. §§ 12.42, 38.10. The trial court deferred adjudication for all four

offenses and placed Lopez on community supervision for ten years.

       The State filed a motion to revoke, and at the hearing, Lopez pleaded “true” to the

allegations in the motion. The trial court revoked Lopez’s community supervision,

adjudicated him guilty of the offenses, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment

for the continuous family violence offense, ten years’ imprisonment for escape, two years

in state jail for evading arrest, and fifteen years’ imprisonment for bail jumping. The trial

court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Lopez’s court-appointed counsel has

filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                   I.     ANDERS BRIEF

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

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

both causes 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), Lopez’s

counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgments. Lopez’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that in

both causes he: (1) notified Lopez that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to

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

Lopez with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires

Lopez’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. An adequate amount of time has passed, and Lopez has not filed a pro se

response in either cause.

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

                                             3
                                     III.     MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

to withdraw as counsel in both causes. 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 in both

causes. 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 Lopez 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 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                            IV.     CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                                                             GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                                             Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of April, 2024.

        1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Lopez 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