Court Opinion

ID: 4879988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-30 07:34:14.541268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:58:44.019603
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-20-00455-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ALDO LIRA,                                                                Appellant,

                                              v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                        Appellee.

                   On appeal from the 52nd District Court
                         of Coryell County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

      A jury convicted appellant Aldo Lira of the offense of delivery of a controlled

substance penalty group one, namely methamphetamine, in an amount of one gram or

more but less than four grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

ANN. § 481.112(c). Lira received a sentence of fifteen years’ confinement. Lira’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.1

                                        I.      ANDERS BRIEF

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

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

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can 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, 407 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).

        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), Lira’s

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

in the trial court’s judgment. Lira’s counsel has also informed this Court in writing that he

has: (1) notified Lira that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2)

provided him with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed him of his rights to file a pro se

response, to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek

        1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco by order of
the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.220(a) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate
courts); 73.001 (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to
another at any time that there is “good cause” for the transfer).

                                                   2
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the

appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided him with a copy of the appellate record.2 See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and

Lira has not filed a response.

                                     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 entire record and counsel’s brief. 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 requirement of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

                                    III.    MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, Lira’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to

withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no

pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing

the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion

          2 On May 14, 2021, we granted Lira’s motion for extension of time to file a response to the Anders

brief. Lira has not filed a response.

        .

                                                     3
to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is

frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days

of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and

this Court’s judgment to Lira and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary

review.3 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 judgment.

                                                                                      JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                                      Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
26th day of August, 2021.

        3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Lira seeks 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. A petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the 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