Opinion
No. 04-18-00357-CR No. 04-18-00358-CR
02-08-2019
Carlos Javier CHAVEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 551667, 551669
Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding
ORDER
This is a consolidated appeal from appellant's convictions for evading arrest and driving while intoxicated. On October 8, 2018, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After review, we struck that brief for failing to meet the requirements of Anders. On November 13, 2018, appellant's appointed counsel filed an amended Anders brief.
One month later, we issued an opinion describing with more particularity the requirements of a valid Anders brief. In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV, 2018 WL 6624409 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet. h.). We struck the redrawn brief filed by appellant's appointed counsel for failing to meet the requirements of In re N.F.M. On January 29, 2019, appellant's appointed counsel filed a second redrawn brief. We have determined that brief complies with In re N.F.M.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has now filed a proper brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certified she served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, 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).
If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so on or before March 25, 2019. 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 ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant's counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (ruling on motion to withdraw should be withheld until 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).
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.
/s/_________
Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of February, 2019.
/s/_________
KEITH E. HOTTLE,
Clerk of Court