Date: 10-04-2020

Case Style:

Case Number: 13-19-00514-CR

Judge: GINA M. BENAVIDES

Court: THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hon. Rodolfo Martinez Jr.
Hon. Ricardo P. Rodriguez

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Edinburg, TX - Criminal Defense Attorney, Aggravated Assault

Nava’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and brief in support thereof
in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a
thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable
grounds for advancing an 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 at 813, and Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel carefully discussed why, under
controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Nava’s
counsel has also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Nava that he has filed an
Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Nava with copies of both filings; (3)
3
informed Nava of his right to file a pro se response,1
to review the record preparatory to
filing that response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Nava with a form
motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this
Court. 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 409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and Nava
has not filed a pro se 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 record and counsel’s brief and we have found no
reversible error. 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, Nava’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to
withdraw. 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.3d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
4
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 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 memorandum opinion, we order counsel to send
a copy of this opinion and judgment to Nava and to advise him of his right to file any
petition for discretionary review.2 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, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: