Court Opinion

ID: 3219756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 15:51:01.066746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:30.959536
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed June 30, 2016

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                 ____________

                              No. 11-16-00042-CR
                                 ____________

                          VICTOR AVILA, Appellant
                                       V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                               Ector County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. C-44,784

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Victor Avila, Appellant, of the second-degree felony
offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The jury assessed punishment
at confinement for a term of ten years and a fine of $1,000, and the trial court
sentenced Appellant accordingly. We dismiss the appeal.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the
appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy
of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record, and
also a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.1
We note that Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s brief.
         Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161
S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and
pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds
no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).       Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
         We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the
attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the
opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along

         1
          This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s
brief.

                                                        2
with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
      The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                                    PER CURIAM

June 30, 2016
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

                                          3