Court Opinion

ID: 7797002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-02 12:11:10.148543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:33.421667
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                  San Antonio, Texas
                                          July 28, 2022

                                      No. 04-22-00205-CR

                                        Martin PEREZ,
                                          Appellant

                                                v.

                                     The STATE of Texas,
                                           Appellee

                  From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas
                                Trial Court No. CRW2103070
                         Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER

        Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,
informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of
his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous,
and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the
procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State,
924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order,
appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.

       If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by August 26, 2022.
At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless
appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a
responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

       We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel be held in
abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988)
(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently
reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);
Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
                                              _________________________________
                                              Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 28th day of July, 2022.

                                              ___________________________________
                                              MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court