Court Opinion

ID: 9391161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 09:08:58.624833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.829551
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-22-00012-CR
     ___________________________

    ALFREDO CHAIREZ, Appellant

                     V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 396th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 1685106D

    Before Birdwell, Kerr, and Bassel, JJ.
    Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Alfredo Chairez pleaded guilty to violating a bond or protective

order twice within a twelve-month period, a third-degree felony, in exchange for three

years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 25.072(e). Around a month later, the State petitioned to proceed to adjudication,

alleging that Chairez had committed four violations of his community-supervision

conditions. Chairez pleaded “true” to the State’s allegations, and the trial court found

them true, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to five years’ confinement.

      Chairez’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief under Anders v. California,1 representing that he has “been unable to find any

potential error in the record that would warrant reversal” and has “determined that

the instant case presents no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.” Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Chairez filed two

pro se responses to the Anders brief, but his responses do not reveal any legitimate

grounds for direct appeal. The State did not file a brief but noted in a letter that it

agreed with counsel that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal.

      1
       386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).

                                           2
      Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must

independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

      We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. Except for our

corrections to the bill of costs addressed below, we agree with counsel that the appeal

is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

      In the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt, the trial court gave Chairez

credit for time served for the $290 in court costs and $55 in reimbursement fees; the

trial court also waived $470 in attorney’s fees. The bill of costs, however, reflects that

Chairez owes these amounts. We correct the bill of costs to match the judgment, see

Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.), grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2

      2
        If Chairez wishes to pursue further review of his case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review on his behalf or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Khondoker v.
State, No. 02-14-00461-CR, 2015 WL 5634244, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept.
24, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this court’s
judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing, or timely motion for

                                            3
                                                     Per Curiam

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 27, 2023

en banc reconsideration, is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.
Additionally, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3(a), 68.4.

                                          4